The Printing Errors Ploy - the last ditch effort of the Bible Agnostics to turn us into one of them.
What About Those Printing Errors and "Revisions" of the 1611 King James Holy Bible?
Has the King James Bible ever been "revised"? Simple answer: No.
BUT versions like the NKJV, NASB, ESV, NIV have been revised many times over.
People who do not believe that any Bible or any text in any language IS right now, today, the inspired, inerrant and complete words of God often raise this objection. They ask us Which Revision of the King James Bible is the inspired word of God?
The simple fact is, the King James Bible has never been "revised". There have been different editions of the King James Bible, in which the Gothic type was changed to Roman type, the spelling of various English words was updated, some minor punctuation changes were made, and several minor printing errors were corrected, but the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts have never changed at all.
Printing errors (typos) did happen in the printings of the King James Bible. There is one undeniable example of where the printer was obviously not paying close attention to what he was doing. He may have been tired or his eyes blurred what he was reading or he just had a mental lapse.
This example is found in 1 Corinthians 15:1-7. You can get a copy of the first printing of the King James Bible 1611 from Thomas Nelson publishers. I have a hard copy myself. When you go to 1 Corinthians chapter 15 we see the verses are numbered in the following fashion. The verses themselves are the same. But the numbering of the verses is not. What we see here is verse numbering as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, 7. Notice the two 5's and the absence of the number 6.
This is clearly a printing error and not what was originally written in the handwritten manuscript the printer had received from the hands of the King James Bible translators. This printing error was soon caught and corrected.
So when some version rummaging Bible agnostic who does not believe that ANY Bible in ANY language they can show us is now or ever was the complete and inerrant words of God, thinks they are so clever and they ask us:
"If the KJV translators where inspired why the several revisions? Which is the directly inspired version? 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, and the last one in 1850?"
We can respond - The King James Bible was first published in 1611. However, there were revisions that followed soon after; all of which were completed in 1629. The revisions that occurred between 1611 and 1629 were due to printing errors. The KJV translators themselves, namely, Samuel Ward and John Bois, corrected these errors. In the course of typesetting, the printers have inadvertently left out words or phrases; all such manifest typographical errors were corrected. For example, Psalms 69:32 of the 1611 edition read "Your heart shall live that seek GOOD" instead of "that seek GOD." This was clearly a printer's error, and was corrected in 1617.
The Spelling of English words was not entirely settled in 1611. When Tyndale did his translation he spelled some English words three different ways.
He even spelled his own last name in a couple different ways.
Even with the older spelling of words in 1611, a person can still read the King James Bible and understand it.
Bible agnostics who do not know for sure what God wrote simply have NO inerrant Bible in ANY language that they will ever show us, simply because they do not believe such a thing exists.
So they come up with these really pathetic excuses for trying to get the rest of us to become bible agnostics and self proclaimed Bible critics like they are.
Other than the updating of the spelling of English words and the correction of minor printing errors that occur in all publications of any length even today, can any of them show us a single deliberate TEXTUAL change in any King James Bible ever printed?
NO, they cannot.
Yet with their fake Vatican supervised text versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB I can show them clear examples of where they have DELIBERATELY changed not only their translations but the very underlying Hebrew and Greek TEXTS they are following from one edition to the next.
Is the King James Bible written in "Old English"?
The KJB is not Old English. It is not even Middle English. It is early modern English. Early modern English began around 1550.
Modern English (as opposed to Middle English and Old English) is the form of the English language spoken since the Great Vowel Shift in England, which began in the late 14th century and was completed in roughly 1550.
With some differences in vocabulary, texts from the early 17th century, such as the works of William Shakespeare and the King James Bible, are considered to be in Modern English, or more specifically, are referred to as using Early Modern English or Elizabethan English.
English was adopted in regions around the world, such as North America, the Indian subcontinent, Africa, Australia and New Zealand through colonization by the British Empire.
Modern English has a large number of dialects spoken in diverse countries throughout the world. This includes American English, Australian English, British English (containing English English, Welsh English and Scottish English), Canadian English, Caribbean English, Hiberno-English, Indian English, Pakistani English, Nigerian English, New Zealand English, Philippine English, Singaporean English, and South African English.
According to the Ethnologue, there are almost 1 billion speakers of English as a first or second language. English is spoken as a first or a second language in a large number of countries, with the largest number of native speakers being in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand; there are also large populations in India, Pakistan, the Philippines and Southern Africa.
It "has more non-native speakers than any other language, is more widely dispersed around the world and is used for more purposes than any other language". Its large number of speakers, plus its worldwide presence, have made English a common language "of the airlines, of the sea and shipping, of computer technology, of science and indeed of communication generally".
Why Did God Allow the Printing Errors?
What do the accidental occurrences of minor printing errors and their gradual correction to a perfectly pure text as we find in the Cambridge printings of the King James Bible illustrate?
Some King James Bible believers are bothered by the fact that there were some minor printing errors in the first printings of the King James Bible.
The Bible agnostics and unbelievers in the inerrancy of ANY Bible in any language are always bringing them up in an effort to prove to us that the King James Bible is not the inerrant words of God.
Of course they themselves don't have one they will ever show us, but they seem to want us to hold the same position of unbelief they do.
Some King James Bible believers sincerely ask: "Why didn't God intervene to preserve the printing process so that the KJB was absolutely perfect the first time?"
I think this is a legitimate question and I have some ideas on why God did it this way.
The originals never did make up an entire Bible - not even close to it. Only God knew which texts and readings and meanings were the ones He intended and inspired.
And just as God, who is the ruler among the nations, and who sees the end from the beginning, used imperfect yet believing men to give us those never seen originals in the first place, so too did He used a group of imperfect yet believing men to gather together into one Book His perfect, infallible and inspired words.
We start out with a perfect underlying text; the specific Hebrew and Greek texts that God guided the King James Bible translators to use as the basis of The Holy Bible.
And just as words sometimes dropped out of the manuscripts by copyists, or were misspelled, (often just one letter as "he/she" or "ye/he"), so too with the continued guidance of God they were soon caught and corrected to their original purity.
We see this same process to a much smaller degree having taken place in the printings of the King James Bible. No other book in history has undergone such rigorous examination and attention to detail.
So rather than seeing the accidental occurrences of minor printing errors that were soon caught and corrected as a stumbling block that causes unbelief in an inerrant Bible, what we see is an illustration of the process the originals themselves went through until God had gathered them all together into one perfect Book of the LORD. (Isaiah 34:16)
The King James Bible you can buy in any bookstore today IS that Book. If we believe in the sovereignty of God in history and His promises the preserve His words and that "heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away" (Matthew 24:35), the ONLY candidate in the running is the King James Bible.
And the ONLY other alternative is that the Bible agnostics and unbelievers in the inerrancy of the Bible are right, and there is not NOW nor was there EVER been such a thing as a complete, inspired and infallible words of God Bible in ANY language.
So, you pick who you are going to believe - God or man, or the serpent's voice who whispers in your ear the first question recorded in the Holy Bible - "Yea, hath God said?" (Genesis 3:1)
You might like to see "Reasons Why The King James Bible Is The Absolute Standard - God's Historic Witness to the Truth"
Has the King James Bible been Revised?
Bible Agnostic, Vatican Version promoter, and King James Bible critic, James White, likes to bring up "the Blayney Revision" like it was a MAJOR change in the readings and texts of the King James Bible, but it was nothing of the sort. This was done in 1769.
Blayney did not change the words of the King James Bible. The only thing he did was to update some of the spelling of certain words (things like sonne to son, sinne to sin, citie to city, eies to eyes, dayes to days, yeares to years, hee to he, sate to sat, sayde to said. He also adjusted some of the punctuation (some few things like a colon to a semi-colon (":" to ";") and he italicized a very few words that were not previously in italics. And some words that previously were capitalized he changed to non-capitalized. For example "ark" used to be "Arke" and "covenant" used to be "Covenant". That was it. He never changed the wording of the King James Bible.
English spelling had not yet been standardized. It was even more chaotic with the English text of William Tyndale in 1525. For example, William Tyndale had two different ways he spelled the word "truth" and two different ways to write the simple word "the" and THREE different ways he spelled "said" and THREE different ways he spelled "any"
She answered and sayde: TRUTHE Lorde: neverthelesse THE whelpes eate of the cromes which fall from their masters table. Matthew 15:27
THE woman feared and trembled (for she knew what was done with in her) and she came and fell doune before him and tolde him YE TRUTH of everythinge. - Mark 5:33
"saide", "sayde" and "said"
Genesis 21:12 - Than the LORDE SAYDE vnto Abraham: let it not be greavous vnto the because of the ladd and of thy bondmayde: But in all that Sara hath SAIDE vnto the heare hir voyce for in Isaac shall thy seed be called.
Jonah 1:8 - The they SAID vnto him tel vs for whose cause we are thus trowbled: what is thine occupacion whence comest thou how is thy cotre called and of what nacion art thou?
Luke 20:3 - He answered and SAIDE vnto the: I also will axe you a questio and answer me.
Revelation 19:3 - And agayne they SAID: Alleluya. And smoke rose vp for evermore.
"any" or "anie" or "eny"
James 1:13 For God tepteth not vnto evyll nether tempteth he ANIE man.
Luke 11:5 - And he sayde vnto them: if ANY of you shuld have a frede and shuld goo to him at mid nyght and saye vnto him: frende lende me thre loves
Matthew 7:9 - Ys there ENY man amoge you which if his sonne axed hym bread wolde offer him astone?
Even today there are many English words that are spelled one way in England and another way in the United States.
A similar example is found in places like Exodus 25:16 where in the present day KJB we read: "And thou shalt put into the ark the testimony which I shall give thee." The original 1611 looked like this: "And thou shalt put into the Arke, the Testimonie which I shall giue thee." Notice that both ark and testimony were capitalized and the word "give" was spelled "giue" because the "v" used to look like a "u".
The word "ark" was also capitalized by the previous Coverdale bible and the Geneva Bible - "thou shalt put in the Arke the Testimonie which I shall giue thee." This capitalization of certain common nouns may have been due to the influence of German. Luther's German bible of 1545 also capitalized both "the ark" and "the testimony" -
Exodus 25:16 in Luther's German Bible looks like this - "Und sollst in die Lade das Zeugnis legen, das ich dirgeben werde." The modern German Schlachter Bible of 2000 still capitalizes both words, and the Italian La Nuova Diodati of 1991 capitalizes "Testimony" - "la Testimonianza"
The Afrikaans Bible 1953 capitalizes "the Testimony" too in Exodus 25:16 - "Daarna moet jy in die ark die Getuienis sit wat Ek aan jou sal gee."
The French Martin Bible of 1744 capitalized both words too - "Et tu mettras dans l'Arche le Témoignage que je te donnerai.", The French Ostervald 1996 capitalized the word Testimony, but the French Louis Second 2006 doesn't capitalize either word.
The Portuguese La Biblia Sagrada capitalized Testimony - "Depois, porás na arca o Testemunho, que eu te darei." but the more modern Portuguese versions do not.
And the Italian Diodati of 1649 also capitalized both words - "Poi metti nell Arca la Testimonianza che io ti darò.", though most modern day Italian bibles like the Riveduta of 2006 do not.
Those are the type of changes Blayney made in 1769. But he did not change the text or the English wording.
There were no textual changes made. By this time the "typos" or "printing errors" had already been caught and corrected. Most of the printing errors were corrected within the first 30 years, and this was done by one or two men who were the original translators.
Here are some of the classic examples:
Deuteronomy 26:1 "which the Lord giueth" vs. "which the LORD thy God giveth"= caught and corrected in 1629
Joshua 3:11 "Arke of the Couenant, euen the Lord" vs. "ark of the covenant of the Lord" - caught and corrected in 1629
Joshua 13:29 "tribe of Manasseh, by" vs. "tribe of the children of Manasseh by" - caught and corrected in 1638
Ruth 3:15 "he went into the citie" vs. "she went into the city" - corrected in 1613.
2 Kings 11:10 in the Temple vs. in the temple of the LORD - caught and corrected in 1638
1 Sam 18:27: 1611 KJV - "David arose, he and his men",- caught and corrected in 1629. Modern KJV - "David arose AND WENT, he and his men"
The original 1611 had a printing error when the words "and went" were skipped over.
How do we know it was a printing error? Simply because the words "and went" are in the Hebrew text and also in the previous bible translations of Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' bible 1568 and the Geneva Bible 1587.
And Scrivener tells us in his book The Authorized Edition of the English Bible 1611, Its Subsequent Reprints and Modern Representatives page 153, that this printing error was caught and corrected in 1629.
Psalm 69:32 "seeke good" vs. "seek God" caught and corrected in 1613. This is obviously a minor printing error. A tired printer probably glanced at what he was to put in the text and made a common mistake. There is only one letter difference between the two words and both of them make sense. "seek GOOD" for "seek GOD". The Hebrew text reads "seek God" and so did all previous English bibles like Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible, Matthew's Bible, the Bishops' bible 1568 and the Geneva Bible 1587.
Isaiah 49:13 "for God" vs. "for the LORD" - caught and corrected in 1638
Jeremiah 31:14 "with goodnesse" vs. "with my goodness" - caught and corrected in 1629
As for Jeremiah 38:16 the first printings had an easily explained printing error, and it didn't even change the meaning of the verse. The first printing accidentally omitted the name Zechariah.
It said: "So the king aware secretly unto Jeremiah"
According to Scrivener, in his book The Authorized Version of the English Bible 1611 - Its Subsequent Reprints and Modern Representatives, this was caught and corrected in 1638 to read as it does now - "So Zedekiah the king stare stare secretly unto Jeremiah...."
Jeremiah 49:1 "inherit God" vs. "inherit Gad" - caught and corrected in 1616.
Jeremiah 51:30 "burnt their dwelling places" vs. "burned her dwelling places" - caught and corrected in 1629
Ezekiel 6:8 "that he may" vs. "that ye may" - caught and corrected in 1612
Ezekiel 24:5 "let him seethe" vs. "let them seethe" - caught and corrected in 1638
Ezekiel 24:7 "powred it vpon the ground" vs. "poured it NOT upon the ground" - caught and corrected in 1613. Very easy to skip over the word "not". It is in the Hebrew texts and so read Wycliffe, Coverdale, Great bible, Matthew's bible, the Bishops' bible and the Geneva bibles.
Ezekiel 48:8 "which they shall" vs. "which ye shall" - caught and corrected in 1638
Daniel 3:15 "a fierie furnace" vs. "a burning fiery furnace" caught and corrected in 1638
Matthew 14:9 "the othes sake" vs. "the oath's sake". ORTHOGRAPHIC STANDARDIZATION/ADJUSTMENT. Earlier English bibles did not have the "comma" before the "s" in "oaths". Tyndale and Bishops' bibles also read this way.
Mark 10:18 - "There is NO MAN good" vs. "there is NONE good" caught and corrected in 1638
John 15:20 - The original printings of the KJB read: "the servant is not greater than the Lord." But the present day King James Bible reads: "the servant is not greater that his lord."
In John 15:20 the meaning is not changed at all in the context whether we read "the servant is not greater than the Lord" or "than his lord".
Reading "the lord" are the Great bible 1540, Matthew's bible 1549 and the Bishops' bible 1568 has "than the Lorde". But reading "the servant is not greater that his lord" are Tyndale, Coverdale while Beza's N.T. 1599 and the Geneva Bible had "than his master".
This "printing error" would have been extremely hard to detect since the meaning is the same regardless of whether it says "the Lord", "the lord" or "his lord".
Scrivener says this final change to "the servant is not greater that his lord" was made in 1762.
Acts 8:32 -- "the shearer" changed to "his shearer". Minor printing error. Caught and corrected in 1629. "HIS shearer" is reading of Tyndale, Coverdale, Great bible, Matthew's bible, the Bishops' bible and the Geneva Bible.
Acts 24:24 -- "which was a Jew" changed to "which was a Jewess". Again, minor printing error, no change in meaning, caught and corrected in 1629. "which was a Jewess" = Tyndale, Coverdale, Great bible, Matthew's bible, Bishops' bible and Geneva Bible.
1 Corinthians 4:9 "approued to death" vs. "appointed to death" caught and corrected in 1616. This was a simple printing error. All previous English bibles read "appointed to death" -Tyndale, Coverdale, Great bible, Matthew's bible, Bishops' bible and the Geneva bible.
1 Corinthians 12:28 "helpes in gouernmets" vs. "helps, governments" - caught and corrected in 1629
1 Corinthians 15:6 "And that" vs. "After that" - caught and corrected in 1616.
2 Timothy 4:13 - "The cloak that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, AND THE BOOKS, but especially the parchments." The 1611 printers accidentally skipped over the words "and the books". This printing error was caught and corrected in 1616. The words "and the books" are in all Greek texts and so too read Wycliffe, Tyndale, the Great Bible, Matthew's bible, the Bishops' bible and the Geneva Bible. This was a simple printing error that was soon caught and corrected.
1 Peter 2:5 - ""sacrifice" changed to "sacrifices". This printing error was caught and corrected in 1629. The TR reads the plural "sacrifices" and so too do Wycliffe, Coverdale, the Great bible, Bishops' bible and the Geneva Bible. The meaning is the same in either case.
1 John 5:12 "the Sonne, hath" vs. "the Son of God hath" FIXED IN 1629
2 Corinthians 11:32: 1611 KJV - "the King, kept the city with a garrison", KJB now - "the king kept the city OF THE DAMASCENES with a garrison"
This again was an obvious printing error where the eyes of the printer skipped over the words. Scrivener says on page 193 of his book that this was caught and corrected in 1629 and it is the reading found in the Greek texts as well as the previous Wycliffe bible 1395, Tyndale 1524, Coverdale 1535, Matthew's bible 1540, the Bishops' bible 1568, and the Geneva Bible 1587.
What about Mark 5:6 "came" or "ran"?
The original printing of the KJB said "But when hee saw Iesus afarre off, he CAME and worshipped him."
The KJB now reads: "But when he saw Jesus afar off, he RAN and worshipped him."
The Greek word in all texts is clearly RAN and not came.
This was a printing error that would have been difficult to catch, but it was caught and corrected in 1638 according to Scrivener's book The Authorized Edition of the English Bible 1611 on page 186.
How do we know it was a printing error? Because the word used there can only mean RAN and so read Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1526, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's bible 1549, the Bishops' bible 1568, the Geneva bible 1587 and The Beza New Testament 1599 - And when he saw Iesus afarre off, he RANNE, and worshipped him.
All this information is found in Scrivener's book "The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), Its subsequent reprints and modern representatives". Published by the Cambridge University Press 1884.
Another false complaint brought up by some KJB critics is that they think there was a printing error in John 3:16 where it says "For God so loued y (with a small "e" above the "y") world, that he gave his only begotten Sonne?
Actually that "ye" which is actually a "y" with a small "e" placed above it is not a printing error at all.
The KJB has this "y" with an "e" above it several times and it seems they did this for reasons of spacing in each line and it means "the"
We see this in 2:5 "y" servants, in 3:1 "y" Jewes, 3:16, in 5:23 "y" Sonne, 7:4 "y" world, 11:47 "y" chief priests, 12:48 "y" word and 15:1 "y" husbandman.
There is also another similar one to this that means "that" in 12:10 where we read a "y" with a "t" over it in "they consulted "y" (that) they might put Lazarus also to death.
Another interesting thing like this is that most of the time the KJB printing has the word "and", but there are several places where it appears in order to preserve the spacing of a line they use the ampersand & instead of "and"
We see these in places like John 1:1 "& the Word was God", 1:14 "& we beheld his glory"; 5:14 "& said unto him"; 5:17 "My Father worketh hitherto & I worke."; 5:20 "& he will shew him greater works than these"; 5:25 "The hour is coming & now is" etc.
So this is not a printing error.
I have never seen James White, or Rick Norris or any other Bible corrector actually show a real textual change that Blayney made. At least, I have not seen them ever give an example and I have read both of these men's books.
They are just tossing dust into the air in hopes of clouding the issue and raising doubt.
The underlying Hebrew and Greek texts that make up the King James Bible have never changed. Not a single word. And now we have better and improved means to print our Bibles and so hardly any of these printing errors are going to slip through.
This is in sharp contrast to the DELIBERATE and conscious TEXTUAL changes that are made in the ever changing ESVs, NIVs, NASBs and NKJVs which have to copyright their works every time they make these changes.
There is only one copyright date on the King James Bible and that is 1611. The reason you will not see different copyright dates is because it has never been "revised". All they have done is to correct some minor printing typos that have occurred at various times through innumerable printings of the King James Bible.
IF every single King James Bible that had ever come off the different printing presses in it's 400 year history had been exactly letter perfect the same every time, would today's Christians like Bob Enyart, Will Duffy, John MacArthur, James White, James Price, Rick Norris, Dan Wallace or Doug Kutilek accept it as being the complete and inerrant words of the living God? Not a chance! They don't believe the texts or the translation of ANY Bible (including "the" Greek and Hebrew) are the inerrant and 100% true words of God.
So if these past, very minor printing errors that occurred in the long history of the King James Bible bother you, but you want to be 99.9% sure of what God has said in His Book, then go with the King James Bible. ANY printing from ANY year of the King James Bible.
For those other Bible believers like myself who see these past, minor printing errors as a non-issue and maintain that God has in fact worked in history to give us a pure, perfect and inerrant Bible in the English language, then go with the King James Bible.
Samuel Ward was involved in the ongoing proofing of the KJV text after its publication in 1611. The only changes of the KJV since 1611 were of three types:
1. 1612: Typography (from Gothic to Roman Type).
2. 1629 & 1638: Correction of typographical errors
3. 1762 & 1769: Standardization of spelling...
These typo-corrected editions of 1629 and 1638 and standardized spelling editions of 1762 and 1769 are wrongly called "revisions" of the KJV, by those who would like to pretend that the KJV has undergone "several revisions" or "four revisions" correcting "slight inaccuracies" and "its English form"... There have never been any "revisions" of the KJV text....Scrivener lists many of the typos and the course of their correction over the years [e.g. 1613, 1616, 1629, 1638, 1744, 1762, 1769 et al.] He lists some of the unwarranted variations. Seeing for one?s self his list of typos, which have been fixed over the years, makes the myth of any textual "revision" of the KJV vanish into smoke. Most are spelling errors of insignificant words, such as "Jehoiakins" vs. "Jehoiachins." Most were fixed almost immediately by Ward and Bois." (Gail Riplinger, In Awe of Thy Word, pp. 600-602)
Previous English translations were revised. William Tyndale revised his own 1526 New Testament twice (in 1534 and 1535). Coverdale revised his 1535 Bible at least once (in 1537). The Great Bible (1539, also the work of Coverdale), underwent a major revision in 1540, and minor revisions nearly every time it was printed. The New Testament of the Geneva Bible was revised by Laurence Tomson in 1576, and Tomson's New Testament replaced the original in many later printings of the Geneva Bible. The Bishops' Bible (1568) underwent a major revision in 1572.
But the text of the King James Bible has never been "revised". Spelling and punctuation have been updated. In 1611 and even much later in the history of the English language, the rules of spelling were not as fixed as they are today. People would even spell their own last names several different ways. Even today there are differences in spelling many words in the English of England and that of the United States. In old English there was an "e" after the verb, as in - feare, blinde, sinne, borne. The old English also had a "long s" in places. The long s looked more like an "f". Thus the word "also" looked more like "alfo" in the early editions of the KJB. The old English had a "u" for the "v" so words looked like "euil" (evil) and "vnderstood" (understood). Days was spelled daies, sin was sinne and Son was Sonne. But the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts have never been changed.
The King James Bible is written in what is considered to be modern English.
According to Wikipedia - "Modern English (sometimes New English as opposed to Middle English and Old English) is the form of the English language spoken since the Great Vowel Shift in England, completed in roughly 1550.
With some differences in vocabulary, texts from the early 17th century, such as the works of William Shakespeare and the King James Bible, are considered to be in Modern English, or more specifically, are referred to as using Early Modern English or Elizabethan English.
According to Ethnologue, there are over 1 billion speakers of English as a first or second language as of 1999. English is spoken in a vast number of territories including the United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada, the United States of America, Australia, New Zealand, India, Pakistan, Philippines, Singapore and Southern Africa.
Its large number of speakers, plus its worldwide presence, have made English a common language for use in such diverse applications as controlling aircraft, developing software, summaries of scientific articles, conducting international diplomacy, and business relations."
Notice how English spelling has changed over the years -
Jon 3:16 Anglo-Saxon gospels circa 1000 A.D. - "God lufode middan-eard swa þt he sealde his ancennendan (sic) sunu. þt nán ne forwurðe þe on hine gelyfð. ac hæbbe þt ece líf"
John 3:16 - Wycliffe 1395 - "For God louede so the world, that he yaf his `oon bigetun sone, that ech man that bileueth in him perische not, but haue euerlastynge lijf."
Tyndale 1525 - For God so loveth the worlde yt he hath geven his only sonne that none that beleve in him shuld perisshe: but shuld have everlastinge lyfe.
Bishops' Bible 1568 - For God so loued the worlde, that he gaue his only begotten sonne, that whosoeuer beleueth in hym, shoulde not perishe, but haue euerlastyng lyfe.
Geneva Bible 1587 - For God so loued the worlde, that hee hath giuen his onely begotten Sonne, that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life.
Original 1611 - For God so loued ye world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life.
1769 King James Bible - For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
The TEXT has not changed; the spelling of English words has. The same can be said for the Hebrew and Greek texts themselves; they are NOT MODERN Hebrew and Greek. No modern day Jew or Greek speaks or writes using the same words or spelling them the same way they used to today.
This is sharp contrast to such modern versions like the NKJVs, NIVs, NASBs, ESVs, etc. that DELIBERATELY keep changing both their English texts and even the underlying Hebrew and Greek from one edition to the next. ALL these modern versions continue to intentionally change their texts.
The 1995 NASB has omitted some 7000 words that were in the 1977 NASB.
The ESV 2001 has already been revised in 2007 where they changed over 300 verses from the previous ESV; then they made another edition in 2011 and yet another one in 2016 - that's 4 different editions in just 16 years!
and now in 2011 the NIV has once again been revised and they tell us they have changed about 10% of the verses from the way they read in the 1984 NIV edition, and they change not only the English text but in some places also the underlying Greek and Hebrew.
Can I prove these allegations? You bet I can. Take a look for yourself and see -
What about the "new" NIV 2011?
There are three changes to the King James Bible since 1611.
1. 1612: Typography ( from Gothic to Roman type).
2. 1629 & 1638: Correction of typographical errors.
3. 1762 & 1769: Standardization of spelling.
Even the American Bible Society, no friend to the King James Bible, had this to say about the "revisions" of the King James Bible. The American Bible Society wrote, "The English Bible, as left by the translators (of 1611), has come down to us unaltered in respect to its text..." They further stated, "With the exception of typographical errors and changes required by the progress of orthography in the English language, the text of our present Bibles remains unchanged, and without variation from the original copy as left by the translators" (Committee on Versions to the Board of Managers, American Bible Society, 1852).
What Revisions Really Look Like
The RSV, itself a revision of the American Standard Version of 1901, came out with the N.T. in 1946 and the O.T. was completed in 1952. Then it was revised in 1962, where they made several textual changes, and then more fully revised again in 1971. In 1971, the RSV Bible was re-released with the Second Edition of the New Testament. Whereas in 1962 the translation panel had authorized a handful of changes, in 1971 they gave the New Testament text a thorough editing. The most obvious changes were the restoration of Mark 16.9-20 (the long ending) and John 7.53-8.11 (in which Jesus forgives an adulteress) to the text (in 1946, they were put in footnotes). Also restored was Luke 22.19b-20, containing the bulk of Jesus' institution of the Lord's Supper. In the 1946-52 text, this had been cut off at the phrase "This is my body", and the rest had only been footnoted. Luke 22.43-44, which had been part of the text in 1946-52, was relegated to the footnote section; in these verses an angel appears to Jesus in Gethsemane to strengthen and encourage Him before His arrest and crucifixion. Many other verses were rewritten.
Then came the New RSV in 1989 and it changed many of the Hebrew and Greek texts of the ever-changing RSVs. Just one example of the many ridiculous changes the NRSV made is in the Messianic Psalm 22 verse 16 where we read: "They PIERCED MY HANDS AND MY FEET." (Geneva Bible, RV, ASV, RSV, ESV, NIV, NKJV, NASB) to now read in the NRSV "My hands and my feet HAVE SHRIVELED."! Then the NRSV was revised again in 2001 to become the ESV (English Standard Version) - now the new rage - which itself has already been revised once again in 2007 where they have changed over 350 verses from the previous ESV done just 6 years before!
You can read more about the ever changing ESVs here:
The NKJV - If you look at the NKJV, you will see it came out in three stages. The New Testament was published in 1979, the Psalms in 1980, and the full NKJV Bible in 1982. I have a copy of the 1979 NKJV New Testament and its English text differs from the 1982 New Testament wording in hundreds of places. You can see some of these changes in the latter part of this study here:
The NIV first came out with its N.T. in 1973 and the full bible in 1978. Then it was revised somewhat in 1984. I have a copy of the 1977 NIV and the wording was changed in scores of places in the 1984 NIV. If you have a 1977 NIV compare places like Matthew 4:24; Matthew 13:20, 22; Matthew 17:15; Luke 18:12; Luke 22:32, John 1:18; 14:15; 19:26; James 1:12 and James 4:5. A major revision and update was announced on September 1, 2009 and is due out in 2011. It is now here and they themselves tell us that they have changed about 10% of the English text. I have examined parts of this new perversion and they have actually changed far more than 10% and they have changed both the Hebrew and the Greek texts in places from what the "old" NIV was like.
The NIV is a very loose paraphrase of the wrong Greek texts and it (along with versions like the RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman Standard, NASB) often rejects the Hebrew texts.
For proof of this, see -
NIV, NASB, ESV, NET and other Vatican Versions reject Hebrew texts Part 2
The NASBs. The NASB, itself another revision of the ASV of 1901, has been revised several times with many changes to both its underlying Hebrew and Greek texts as well as its English wording. The N.T. came out in 1963 and the whole bible in 1971. Since then it has changed hundreds of words in each succeeding edition (1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977 and its latest incarnation in the Updated 1995 NASB has omitted almost 7000 words that were found in the previous 1977 NASB edition. The NASB keeps on changing its Hebrew and Greek foundation from revision to revision. Here are some concrete examples of what they are doing.
However when we get the the Authorized King James Holy Bible and you open it up to the front, you won't find any such varying copyright dates nor revisions. Why? Because it has never been "revised"; the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts have never been changed. Only the spelling and punctuation has been modernized to some extent and various minor printing errors that have occurred in its long history have been corrected. The "No Bible is infallible" crowd then asks us" "Well, how do you know that something is a printing error or not? Which KJV do you use and which one is the infallible words of God?" They don't ask these questions because they are seeking a complete and infallible Bible, but are trying to destroy our faith that one actually exists. Faith looks for answers; Unbelief looks for doubt.
God has given us a "double-check system" whereby we can be absolutely sure of what His inspired and preserved words are and what they mean. Modern versions proponents (NIV, ESV, NASB, NKJV, Holman, NET, etc.) have no such "double check system" simply because they often reject the clear Hebrew readings and they are constantly changing not only their English translations, but their own underlying Hebrew and Greek texts from one edition to the next. They have NO settled text in "the original languages" and they know it.
On the other hand, we King James Bible believers maintain that the God of history, the ruler of the nations, has acted in time to use a group of men to give us both the correct underlying Hebrew and Greek texts (after all, only God knows for sure which words are His and which are not) and the correct English meaning of these same texts.
If we are not sure something is a printing error or not, all we have to do is take a look at the specific underlying Hebrew or Greek texts that God used in bringing forth the greatest Bible ever printed, and these underlying texts have never changed in 400 years now.
If I want to know what is the correct meaning of the underlying text, I simply read and believe the English translation found in the infallible King James Holy Bible. Pretty simple really, but of course the Bible doubters will never accept this. Don't worry about it; they still don't have an infallible Bible and we do.
We will see examples of some of these unintentional printing errors in the rest of this article.
Pastor David F. Reagan has written an excellent article about The Myth of Early Revisions of the Authorized King James Holy Bible. In his article he discusses the conditions of the printing process in 1611, and shows how the so called revisions are actually only examples of updating the spelling of words and the correction of minor printing errors.
His article can be seen here - http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/revisions.html
Pastor Reagan rightly says: "We need to establish one thing from the out-set. The authority for our preserved English text is not found in any human work. The authority for our preserved and infallible English text is in God! Printers may foul up at times and humans will still make plenty of errors, but God in His power and mercy will preserve His text despite the weaknesses of fallible man."
Brother Herb Evans, another strong King James Bible believer, briefly answers this typical objection to the King James Bible being the pure words of God. " If God supervised the translation process so that the KJV is 100% error free, why did God not extend this supervision to the printers?"
Brother Evans answers: "Probably because He did not extend His supervision to the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that we have. None of them are without errors and none are even complete. We can't expect more of the KJB Bible printers than we can of the Hebrew and Greek printers, now can we? Don't you make any distinctions between textual errors and typographical errors? In the English? In the Greek also? "? Herb Evans
Dr. Donald Waite also has written a booklet titled The Authorized Version 1611 Compared to Today's King James Version. In this booklet Dr. Waite discusses the "thousands of changes", and he clearly shows that the vast majority of the changes have to do with changing the printing type from Gothic print to Roman, and updating the spelling of such words as "Sonne" to "Son", and "sinne" to "sin", "daies" to "days, "blesse" to "bless", "weepe" to "weep" and "owne" to "own".
In the first printing of the 1611 Holy Bible there were hundreds of very minor printing errors such as omitting or duplicating a word, or the misspelling of a simple word. None of these printing errors seriously affected the sense of the passage nor introduced any false doctrines.
The printing process was laboriously done by hand, backwards! and one letter at a time. It was very common in all printed works of that day to contain "typos". These are things like "the shearer" to "his shearer" Acts 8:32; "sacrifice" to "sacrifices" 1 Peter 2:5 ; "made a" to "made thee a" Isaiah 57:8; "the field" to "thy field" Lev. 23:22; "Bozra" to "Bozrah" Genesis 36:33; "Jabok" to "Jabbok" Lev. 21:24, and "while the feast" to "while their feast" Judges 14:17.
The King James Bible contains 791,328 words. Since the first King James Bible rolled off the press in 1611 to the King James Bible you buy off the shelf today, NOTHING HAS BEEN CHANGED in the English text aside from these minor corrections of printing errors nor in the underlying Greek and Hebrew texts that were used in the making of this magnificent Holy Bible.
The total number of printing errors that have been corrected or the spelling updates would amount to no more than a maximum of one-tenth of one percent. Among these changes are the following examples:
TOWARDS has been changed to TOWARD 14 times.
BURNT has been changed to BURNED 31 times.
AMONGST has been changed to AMONG 36 times.
LIFT has been changed to LIFTED 51 times.
The nature of the other so called "revisions" have been of the type of "thy people" to "the children of thy people" in Ezekiel 3:11 (easily a printing error of skipping three words); "wayes" to "ways" 2 Kings 22:2; "wee shall" to "for we shall" Romans 14:10. All of these are easily explained as minor printing errors, but THE TEXT itself has never changed.
In the first printing of 1611, the words "of God" were accidentally left out of 1 John 5:12. These two words are in the Greek texts and in all previous English Bible versions including Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568 and the Geneva Bible 1587. (Remember? Our 'double check' system.)
1 John 5:12 reads: "He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life." This minor printing error was soon discovered and corrected in 1629. If you can find one of these 400 year old King James Bibles that has this misprint in it, it would be worth a lot of money today just because of its historical peculiarity.
Another one the bible agnostics bring up is 2 Kings 11:10 where the first printing of 1611 accidentally omitted the words "of the LORD" from the phrase "in the temple of the LORD." This printing error was soon discovered and corrected in 1638.
It would have been very easy for a hard working printer to overlook this phrase in the midst of a chapter that refers to "the house of the Lord", the "temple of the Lord" and "the house" in verses 3, 4 (twice), 5, 6, 7, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19 (twice) and 20. Not even the meaning of the verse is lost by the accidental omission of these words; but it was soon caught and corrected. No other Bible in history has been so carefully compared and examined as has been the Authorized King James Holy Bible.
The biggest printing error occurred in Exodus 14:10 "and...afraid" where 21 words were accidentally omitted due most likely to the printer's eyes having skipped from one "and" to the next "and".
In every case, the underlying Greek and Hebrew texts remained the same and only minor printing errors occurred, all of which were soon caught and corrected to read as they now stand in the King James Bible.
Even Scrivener, who worked on the English Revised Version of 1881, and documented every one of the printing errors in the 1611 printing, (I have his book too) admitted that the Cambridge printers had simply reinstated words and clauses overlooked by the 1611 printers and amended manifest printing errors. According to a study which he wrote 72% of the approximately 400 textual corrections in the King James Bible were completed by the time of the 1638 Cambridge edition, only 27 years after the original printing! (Not in 1769)
What About Deuteronomy 26:1?
The Example of Deuteronomy 26:1 is either an unintentional error made by the KJB translators OR a minor printing error that was soon corrected.
Some Bible critics have affirmed that the KJB translators made an error in omitting two words that later were put back into the text has been brought to my attention. There may or may not be something to this charge, as we shall see.
It concerns Deuteronomy 26:1. There is a picture of a copy of the Bishops' bible that is located in the Boolean Library that the KJB translators allegedly used in the making of their translation. We know that each translator was given a copy of the Bishops' bible and many of them made notes in their Bishops' bible regarding the text or changes that they wished to make.
The Bishops' Bible had some words in it that are not found in the Hebrew texts and this particular copy of the Bishops' bible shows a line being drawn through the words that were omitted from the KJB in its first printing. Whoever had this particular copy of the Bishops' bible (as far as I know, there is only one of them remaining that has been found, and none of them that we can prove the KJB translators used) also drew a line through two words that DID belong in the text.
The Bishops' bible read like this in Deuteronomy 26:1 -
"When thou art come into the lande which the Lord thy God geueth thee to inherite, and hast enioyed it, & dwellest therin"
You will notice the additional words "and hast enjoyed it". The KJB translators correctly removed these words, but someone also drew a line through the words "thy God", and this should not have been omitted.
It was caught and corrected in 1629 by two of the original KJB translators.
The Geneva Bible had it right. It read:
"Also when thou shalt come into the lande which the Lord thy God giueth thee for inheritance, and shalt possesse it, and dwell therein,"
You will notice that it reads like the KJB does now. It has "the LORD thy God" and it omits the extra words.
The omission of the words "thy God" in the first printings of the King James Bible appears to be #1. either a mistake by the translators that was soon caught and corrected to "the LORD thy God". This was done by two of the original translators who worked on the KJB in 1629.
OR, #2. This particular 1602 copy of the Bishops' bible was in the possession of someone (we do not know who) who merely noted the textual changes that the King James Bible had made in its first printings, and the omission of the words "thy God" is nothing more than another easily explained printing error.
This is easily explained in that the phrase "the LORD thy God" are repeated over and over again in this section of Scripture. We see this phrase in Deuteronomy 25:15, 16, 19 (twice) and repeated again and again in Deuteronomy 26:1, 2 (twice) 3, 4, 5, 10 (twice), 11, 13, 16, 17, and 19, While the words "the LORD" are found by themselves in 26:3, 7, 8, 10, and 18.
The omission of these two little words makes no doctrinal change or even a change in meaning of the text.
As I pointed out in my article about the Printing Errors Ploy, the process the KJB went through during its first printings reflects on a very small scale the process God went through in purifying his words.
The Printed Bible The Authorized Version - information regarding this particular 1602 copy of the Bishops? bible.
See footnote #3 on page 118 regarding this "Bishops' bible" 1602 copy, which has wrongly been supposed to be one of the Bishop bibles the translators used for the press. "The history of the book is unknown; but the occurrence of the reference letters is at least certain proof that it was not designed for the press. In all probability it contains simply a scholar's collation of the Royal and Bishops' texts, with an attempt to trace the corrections."
It is also noted in this article that at least 3 and possibly 4 different people made some of the annotations in this particular copy of the Bishops' bible. They can tell this by the different handwriting.
It is really impossible to know for sure who or when or even why these notes, annotations and lines drawn through certain words were done, and whether or not this particular copy of the Bishop's bible played any role at all in the formation of the first printings of the King James Bible. The Bible critics can swear and affirm that it does, but the fact is there is no historical documentation of any kind to prove their claims.
So there is the distinct possibility that this Boolean Library Bishops' bible 1602 was just an individual's (or several people's) attempt to mark or keep a personal record of the textual changes that had been made in the first printings of the King James Bible, and was not one of the ones used by the King James Bible translators to make or decide upon their textual decisions.
See also The English Bible - Numerous Misprints page 290 where Westcott affirms that this particular 1602 Bishops' Bible was not one of the ones used at press by the King James Bible translators.
McGrath in his history of the making of the KJB shows us that the Bod MS is not 100%, because he says, "There is at least some degree of correspondence between the annotated text and the final version of the King James" (pages 187, 188.) And Nicolson, on page 210 of his Power and Glory says, "Bible ... the correspondence is not as great as one might expect."
We King James Bible believers can be confident that we have today a complete and inerrant words of God Bible in the KJB.
What the non-KJB only side has is a series of bible versions that are based on the Vatican supervised texts that omit some 3000 words from the N.T. and change or reject and add to numerous Hebrew readings, and are constantly and DELIBERATELY changing both their texts and meanings and they all DO corrupt many sound doctrines and they degrade the Lord Jesus Christ in many places, and NOBODY seriously believes that any of them are the inerrant words of God.
Fake Bibles Do Teach False Doctrines
Many Modern Versions Degrade the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ
Matthew 27:24; Matthew 28:6; Luke 23:42; John 3:13; John 7:8-10; Matthew 5:22; Mark 9:24; Philippians 2:6-8; 1 Corinthians 10:9, 1 Corinthians 15:47; Micah 5:2; 1 Timothy 3:16 and "Worship" or "Kneel before"? Romans 14:10-12; Isaiah 32:2 "a MAN shall be as an hiding place"
So, if I have to choose between the two - an infallible King James Bible that has been examined and tested far more than any other Bible or book in history, and found to be the pure and 100% true words of God, or the corrupt Vatican Versions, this is not difficult to make.
All the "printing errors" were of a minor nature and were nothing in comparison to the wholesale deliberate omissions of literally thousands of God inspired words in such contradictory versions as the NASB, ESV, RSV, NIV, NKJV, Holman etc., and every one of these modern versions continue to change their own underlying Greek and Hebrew texts and their English text from one edition to the next.
They change literally hundreds of words from their own versions to the next one every few years. The NASB has now gone through some 9 different editions, with the latest one omitting some 7000 words that were in the previous 1977 NASB. The NIV continues to change its texts (both the English and the underlying Hebrew and Greek) from edition to edition and so does the NKJV.
The ESV omits even more whole verses than the NIV or NASB and a whole lot more than the NKJV, and all of them reject up to hundreds of Hebrew readings and not even in the same places. The ESV just came out in 2001, and already in 2007 they have come out with another "revision" that either changes the English text, corrects "printing errors" and even change the Greek and Hebrew readings in more than 350 verses. You can see these changes for yourself at this site:
So what do the Bible agnostics try to do to convince you that there never has been and is not now any Bible in any language that is or ever was the perfect words of God? They tell us that the printing errors in the history of the King James Bible printings are on the same level as their modern version's wholesale and DELIBERATE changes. This way they think they can justify their own perversions that not even they believe are the complete and infallible words of God.
This is what is happening folks, and the majority of present day Christians no longer believe in the Inerrancy of Scripture. They have swallowed Satan's lie and believed the first question found in the Bible - "Yea, hath God said....?"
"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."
At a Bible club I belong to, one Christian brought up two examples he thought were textual changes rather than spelling errors. He said to me: "Brother Kinney, if you will continue to look at Dr. Waite's excellent booklet you will notice on page 20, item numbers 0144 and 0177 where "GOD" was changed to "LORD" twice. (Once in 2 Chronicles 28:11, and again in Isaiah 49:13) On page 21, item number 0067 where "LAMBE" was changed to "RAM." (Numbers 6:14) I am sure you do not dismiss those as corrections of printer's errors. They are actual word changes. How do you address those actual word changes in view of your position on the perfect nature of the KJV?"
To which I answered: "These two examples are really quite easy to explain. I believe they are simple printing errors. The words God, Lord, GOD, LORD, are found with what a printer might consider monotonous regularity throughout those passages. It would have been quite easy for a tired and weary printer to skip over or misread the word God and put Lord instead, or vice versa. The fact is that out of the thousands of times the words "Lord, LORD, God, and GOD" occur in the Old Testament, only twice did this easily explained printing error occur."
"As for the second example, the verse in question - Numbers 6:14- actually contains three printing errors. I will highlight the printing errors in capital letters. Also notice the old style spelling of some words, which later were updated, and which the critics love to number among their "thousands of changes". In the reprint of the original 1611 Bible, put out by Thomas Nelson Publishers, it reads: "And he shall offer his OFFRING unto the LORD, one hee lambe of the first yeere without blemish, for a burnt offering, OFFERING, and one ewe lambe of the first yeere without blemish, for a sinne offering, and one LAMBE without blemish for peace offerings."
You will notice here the three printing errors in this one verse. The printer misspelled offering once as "offring", he also repeated the word "offering, offering", and instead of reading "lamb", "lamb" and "ram", he accidentally printed "lamb, lamb, lamb". The word "lamb" occurs twice already in Numbers 6:14, and the third time the original 1611 misprinted the word "lamb" for "ram", which is in the Hebrew and in the present day KJB editions. This mistake would have been quite easy to do for the printer who was hand setting the type. He most likely saw the word "lamb" twice already and mistook "ram", which shares both the "a" and the "m", with the word "lamb".
As you can see, there is no deliberate change in the text or meaning from 1611 to the present. To compare these extremely minor changes in spelling and accidental printing errors to the thousands of deliberate changes in texts, meaning and translation that occur in the modern versions is totally unjustified.
Modern Bible versions such as the NASB, NKJV, NIV are constantly and deliberately changing their own English texts in literally hundreds and even thousands of places. The NASB made almost 7000 changes in their own text from the 1977 to the 1995 editions. Likewise the NKJV 1982 edition has changed thousands of words from that of their 1979 edition, and the NIV, and the ESV continue to do the same from one edition to the next. These are not minor printing errors in the NASB, NKJV, ESV and NIV, but deliberate alterations of both the underlying Greek and Hebrew texts as well as the English translation.
Throughout the history of Bible publishing there have been some rather humorous examples of printing errors . It should also be noted that there have been printing errors, even with today's advanced technology, in the NASB, NKJV, and NIV as well. Here are a few of the printing errors that have occurred in various King James Bible editions.
A 1631 edition became known as the "Wicked Bible" because the seventh commandment read, "thou shalt commit adultery."
"Wicked Bible" 1631 - This Bible is an unspeakably rare collector's item. The printers were fined 300 pounds sterling for their terrible typographical error in printing the Ten Commandments, omitting the all-important word "not" and rendering the verse as, "Thou shalt commit adultery"! The lot of 1,000 copies were ordered destroyed, but only a handful escaped destruction, making them the rarest of rare. This is the only one for sale in the world.
You can read about this infamous "the Wicked Bible" (or The Adulterous Bible) here -
The printer of the "Fool Bible" had to pay 3,000 pounds for this mistake in Psalm 14:1: "The fool hath said in his heart there is a God."
In 1653, there was a misprint in I Corinthians 6:9 that read, "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall inherit the kingdom of God" and one in Romans 6:13 that read, "Neither yield ye your members as instruments of righteousness unto sin." This Bible became known as "the Unrighteous Bible."
In 1716 an Irish edition contains a tiny but significant typo. In John 5:14 it read "sin on more" rather than "sin no more". No one noticed the error until 8000 copies had been printed and bound.
In 1717, there was a misprint in a heading for the "parable of the vineyard," which called it the "Parable of the vinegar." This Bible was called "the Vinegar Bible."
In 1801, Jude 16 stated, "these are murderers" instead of "murmurers", and Mark 7:27 stated, "let the children first be killed" instead of "filled." This Bible was nicknamed "the Murderers Bible."
In 1820, Jesus says, "Who hath ears to ear, let him hear" in Matthew 13:43, and this was called "the Ears to Ear" Bible.
In 1823, Genesis 24:61 states "Rebekah arose, and her camels", instead of "her damsels," in "Rebekah's Camels Bible."
The cause for all of these defects may be found in "the Printers' Bible"(1702), which states in Psalm 119:161, "printers have persecuted me" (instead of "princes" have persecuted me). If ever there was a misprint that carried a lot of legitimate meaning, this is it. "Printers have persecuted me."
The whole "Printing Error" complaint the Bible doubters and biblical relativists bring up is really a non issue. What I mean by this is that if every single copy of the King James Bible that has ever come off the presses read exactly the same with no minor printing errors at all found in any of them, it still would not change their opinion that the KJB is not the inspired, inerrant word of God. It is brought up as a smokescreen and is not a serious issue concerning the ultimate truth of Scripture and its preservation.
Most people who reject the King James Bible as being the inerrant, preserved words of God in English, do so for other reasons than printing errors. They have done so because they went to a seminary where they were taught that no Bible in any language and no text, be it Hebrew or Greek, is the inspired words of God. Or they visited some anti-KJV only website where they were told something like: "The KJV is not based on the best texts", "God forbid" is wrong, or "1 John 5:7 does not belong in the Bible." They most likely assumed that all KJB Bibles read the same since the very beginning. It wasn't till later they learned of the minor printing errors issue and now they toss this up as a smokescreen. Like I said, if someone is convinced the KJB is not the inspired word of God, no matter if all copies in its long history read exactly the same, his mind would not be changed by this fact. The alleged "revisions" and "hundreds of printing errors" is a non-issue of no real significance.
Another member at one of the internet Bible clubs brought up this very common objection. He asked: "Why did God guide the hands and minds of the KJV translators to produce a perfect Bible, only to have it corrupted by printers? I'll await your answer."
To which I answered: Hi..., excellent question. Here is what I believe about this. The production of the KJB mirrors exactly what happened in the case of the originals and all good copies of the correct texts.
God inspired the originals. Scribes then copied these originals into other manuscripts but all of the correct line of good copies introduced "printing errors", inversion of word order, slight omissions, and such like. God's word was not lost but needed some degree of purification as a result of human error.
God has preserved His inerrant words Providentially, not miraculously. He did not keep every copyist from making "printing errors", but He guided in such a way as to purify the text and bring it back to its original state.
It seems you would have to admit that the stated purpose of modern scholarship is to accomplish this same end. They believe they need to examine the evidence, purge the texts of errors and false readings, and try to restore the texts to their original state.
Yet their results are exceedingly flawed, and some even admit it is hopeless. Witness the textual differences between the ESV, NASB, Holman Christian Standard, and the NIV. Literally hundreds of words from the texts themselves are different between the ESV, Holman, and the NASB.
The scholars today, all of whom have the same training and access to the same information, all come up with very different conclusions, and the multiple, conflicting bible versions reflect these differences.
I think God has allowed the issue of "printing errors" to act as a stumbling block to blatant hypocrites. It is hypocritical to claim a Bible or text of any kind needs to be free of all scribal or printing errors in order to meet the Standard of being "inerrant and inspired". This man-made Standard then turns on the one who makes it, because it then invalidates his own claim to any Bible or any version as being the infallible word of God. His own favorite bible version(s) also fail to meet the Standard he has set up. By bringing up the issue of "printing errors" the Bible critic cuts his own throat.
If one adopts the view that the correction of printing errors in the history of any Bible version or Hebrew or Greek text disqualifies it from being the word of God, then you end up with no inspired, inerrant Bible anywhere on this earth. That too is carrying the argument to its logical conclusion. Guess who wants you to think this way?
Without exception, every person I have encountered who raises this objection about "printing errors and revisions" in the King James Bible's history, himself has no Bible and no text that he considers to be the inspired, complete and inerrant words of God. If he insists on raising this petty and hypocritical objection to the King James Bible as being the perfect word of God, then God will allow him to stumble over this pebble in the road. He will reap the bitter fruits of his own unbelief in the promises and ways of God who covenanted to preserve His words in a Book till heaven and earth pass away.
My belief is that God has kept His promises to preserve His inerrant words, and He has already providentially guided certain chosen men through this same "scholarly process" to select both the correct texts and the correct meaning for those texts. After all, it is only God who really knows which readings are His and which are not. The King James Bible believer first looks to God and His promises to preserve His words, and believes that God has done what He said He would do.
The "No Bible is Inspired" group, or the "reliable but flawed versions" promoters, seem to think that they and their colleagues are capable "restoring" what God never lost, and deny that God has already preserved His inerrant words in any Bible on this earth.
This is the fundamental difference in our approach to the doctrines of inspiration and preservation. We King James Bible believers are convinced God has done what He said He would do. The Bible of the Month Club member thinks it is still an ongoing process and his results are getting more confused and divergent as time goes by.
The Nestle-Aland, UBS Greek text, upon which most modern versions are based, continues to change every few years, and the modern versions have introduced a multitude of textual variations into the Old Testament Scriptures. They often reject the Hebrew readings in favor of the alleged pre-Christian Septuagint, Syriac, Samaritan Pentateuch, or Vulgate texts. Just look at the differences between the KJB, NASB, NIV, Holman Standard, and the ESV in this regard.
God alone sees the end from the beginning and He knew very well that the battle for the Bible would intensify in the latter days. God gave us His holy and true words in the Bible that He knew would be used far more effectively than any other in history - the Authorized King James Holy Bible. Those who cavil and complain about the minor printing errors in the history of this great Book of books are stumbling over pebbles and straining at gnats to swallow a camel.
The "Probably Close Enuf" side ends up with no inspired, complete, inerrant, sure words of God, and maximum uncertainty. = "Yea, hath God said...?"
The King James Bible believer is convinced he has the inerrant words of God and enjoys maximum certainty and rest in the fulfilled promises of Almighty God. = "Thus saith the LORD".
The King James Bible we have today is the same as the one in 1611.
I hope this helps you to better understand the nature of the so called "thousands of changes" that have occurred in the King James Bible since 1611 to the present.
If you care to read it, here is a well done and short article dealing with the so called "revisions" of the King James Bible, and the printing errors issue.http://www.scionofzion.com/revisions.htm
When it comes to the question the Bible agnostics often toss in the King James Bible believer's face - Which King James Bible are you reading, the 1611 edition or the 1769 edition? - here is a 30 minute video by another King James Bible believer that covers this topic with a lot of factual material. It is a You Tube video and can be seen here -
Examples of the major printing errors, that in most cases, were soon caught and corrected. You will notice that the meaning is hardly affected at all.
Rom. 7:13 Rom. 14:6 1 Cor. 7:32 1 Cor. 12:28 1 Cor. 13:2 1 Cor. 15:6 2 Cor. 11:32 1 Tim. 1:4
2 Tim. 2:19 James 5:2 1 Pet. 2:1 Jude 25
1611 printing and modern KJBs
Romans 7:13 "Was then that" caught and corrected to "was that then" 1612 = mere printing error. Also reading "was that then" are Tyndale, Great bible, Matthew's bible, Bishops', Geneva and Beza N.T. 1599
Romans 14:6 "He that regardeth a day" corrected 1629 to "He that regardeth the day" was the reading of Great Bible 1540, Bishops' bible, Geneva bible and the Beza N.T. 1599 "the"was in them
1 Corinthians 7:32 the 1611 printing was misspelled and said "the things that belogeth" caught and corrected to "things that belong" in 1612. "things that belong" = Great Bible 1540, Bishops' bible 1568 [Tyndale, Matthew's and Geneva bible read "the things of the Lord"
1 Corinthians 12:28 the 1611 printing had "helpes in governmets" caught and changed in 1629 to "helps, governments". None of the other English bibles had the word "in" in them. They all read "helpers, gouernours"
1 Corinthians 13:2 the 1611 printing had "have no charity". Changed in 1762 to "have not charity". The Bishops' bible and the Geneva bible and Beza read "have not love"
1 Corinthians 15:6 the 1611 printing had "And that he was seen of Cephas". Caught and corrected in 1616 to read: "After that he was seen of Cephas". So read all previous bibles - Tyndale, Great, Matthews, Bishops', the Geneva and Beza.
1 Corinthians 11:32 the 1611 printing accidentally omitted "of the Damascenes" and merely had "the city". Caught and corrected in 1629 - "the city of the Damascenes" and so read Tyndale, Great bible, Matthew's bible, the Bishops' bible, the Geneva bible and Beza.
1 Timothy 1:4 in the 1611 the word "godly" was accidentally omitted and simply read "edifying". Caught in 1638 and corrected to "godly edifying" as was found in Tyndale, Great, Matthew's, Bishops', Geneva bible and Beza.
2 Timothy 2:19 the 1611 had "having the seal". Caught and corrected in 1617 to "having this seal" as was found in Tyndale, Coverdale, Great, Matthew's, Bishops', Geneva and Beza.
James 5:2 the 1611 printing had "your garments motheaten." Caught and corrected in 1638 to "your garments are motheaten" as was found in Tyndale, Coverdale, the Great bible, Matthew's bible, the Bishops' bible, Geneva Bible and Beza N.T.
1 Peter 2:1 the 16ll had "evil speakings". Caught and corrected in 1629 to "all evil speakings". The word "all" was in Tyndale, Coverdale, Great, Matthew's, Bishops', Geneva and Beza bibles.
Jude 25, the 1611 printing had "now and ever". Caught and corrected to "both now and ever" as found in the Geneva Bible and the Beza N.T. 1599. Great bible and Bishops' bible had "now and ever". Tyndale, Coverdale and Matthew's bible had "now and for ever".
Some more thoughts on the 'printing errors' thingy.
It is interesting to me how those who object to a perfect Bible in any language deal with the issue of past printing errors in the various editions of the King James Bible. At one of our Bible clubs, a man called Aaron said he had read my article about the past printing errors twice, and he still objected to my position that the King James Bible is the only true Bible.
Here is his stated position. He said: "If it had printing errors in it, then it can't be the perfect words of God. I can be just as true to the Bible and disagree with verbal- plenary-inerrant-preservation-in-a-single-text-version-manuscript-and/or- group-of- manuscripts idea. At this point you will say, well if I can't point to a single version or text that leaves me with no final authority and thus how can I even know if I'm true to the Bible? To that I will reply that to 90% of the text of the Bible there is no doubt. That 10% that is in doubt is mostly minor except for a few major ones we are all familiar with. I can speak of THE Bible without needing to point to a particular version as THE ONE. THE Bible, first of all, is forever settled in heaven. It exists. It will never pass away. THE Bible, secondly, exists in the multiplicity of manuscripts and versions we possess today. Somewhere in there is the true Word of God."
Can you see how badly this man has stumbled over the minor pebble of "printing errors"? The printing errors issue bothers this man so much that he has rejected the doctrine of a pure and perfect Bible in any language here on this earth. Yet he turns right around and tells us that "only ten percent " of the Bible text is "in doubt" but this is only a "minor" consideration. We also have a few "major" ones, but he still thinks he can refer to "The Bible", even though it's not something in print. Instead he says it is settled in heaven, (though he has never seen it), and "SOMEWHERE" the true words of God are in the multiplicity of manuscripts and versions. This is like saying the true words of God are found in Webster's unabridged dictionary - all mixed up with thousands of words that are not Scripture and out of order, but, Hey, they're in there somewhere." The printing errors issue is blown way out of proportion, and his 10% of textual uncertainly is only "minor". This is the broke-down logical conclusion of all Bible Agnostics. They don't know where "the Bible" is to be found, or what "the Bible" might or might not say, but the only thing they all agree upon is that it is NOT the King James Bible.
Another example of alleged changes and differences in the King James Bible is often brought up by people like Doug Kutilek, or Rick Norris who themselves do not believe ANY Bible or ANY text IS NOW the inspired and inerrant words of God. These are a very few minor differences between the Cambridge and the Oxford editions. The Oxford editions still have three or four very minor printing errors in them that they have never corrected.
Ruth 3:15 he or she?
Frequently those who claim the King James Bible is riddled with errors and has changed in thousands and thousands of places since it first came out in 1611, bring up Ruth 3:15 as an example of contradiction and confusion. This supposed error is one of Doug Kutilek's favorites. He has no final authority but his own mind and he seems to take great delight in pointing out alleged errors in the KJB.
Mr. Kutilek says: "It should be unnecessary to say much about variations which have always existed among various printings and editions of the KJV. They do exist, and have from the beginning (the two editions printed in 1611 differ in over 2,000 places, perhaps the most famous being "he" or "she" at Ruth 3:15)."
Actually, I know of a few more places where the KJB Cambridge edition differs from SOME Oxford KJB editions. One is in Jeremiah 34:16 where the Cambridge KJB reads: "whom YE had set at liberty" while some Oxford editions says: "whom HE had set at liberty", and Song of Solomon 2:7 where the Cambridge KJB edition says: "that ye stir not up, nor awake my love, till HE please", while some Oxford KJBs says "nor awake my love, till SHE please."
Another one that exits in SOME, but not all, Oxford editions is found in Joshua 19:2 where the original 1611 and the Cambridge editions correctly say: "Beersheba, OR Sheba, and..."
We will examine each of these and compare them with other Bible versions.
An excellent study of these "thousands of changes" showing that the vast majority of them were changes in spelling, as Sonne to Son, and yeeres to years, can be found at this site.
Ruth 3:15. The Cambridge edition, which I use, says: "Also he said, Bring the vail that thou hast upon thee, and hold it. And when she held it, he measured six measures of barley, and laid it on her: and SHE went into the city."
The story goes that there were two printings done in 1611, the first one said HE went into the city, referring to Boaz and the second one corrected this minor printing error and said SHE went into the city, referring to Ruth.
In the 1613 edition, it read, "SHE went into the city," referring to Ruth. These two editions became known as "the Great He Bible" and "the Great She Bible" respectively. This printing error was caught almost immediately and changed back to the reading of "she" went into the city.
And how do we know it was nothing more than a minor printing error? Because all the previous English Bibles that the KJB translators consulted said SHE went into the city. This includes the Coverdale bible 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568 and the Geneva bible 1587.
The Oxford edition of the KJB that I have also says "SHE went into the city."
Mr. Kutilek and those like him have no infallible Bible. They continue to promote the modern versions which differ from one another in both text and meaning in hundreds of verses. The NASB, NIV and ESV often reject the Hebrew Masorretic texts and follow the Greek Septuagint, Syriac, Samaritan Pentateuch, Dead Sea Scrolls or the Vulgate in scores of instances and often not in the same places as the others. Yet this is the confused Bible of the Month club babel that Mr. Kutilek would recommend to overthrow the time tested KJB.
There still continue to be differences among the many versions even in Ruth 3:15. Those versions that read: "And HE went into the city" are the NIV 1984-2011, Revised Version 1881, American Standard Version 1901, Darby 1890, Young's 1898, the Jewish 1917 translation, the 1998 Complete Jewish Bible translation, the World English Bible, New Century Version 1991, New Living Translation 2007, the New Revised Standard Version 1989, Dan Wallace's NET version 2006, the Catholic St. Joseph New American Bible of 1970, The Complete Jewish Bible 1998, The Judaica Press Tanach 2004, the 2005 TNIV (Today's NIV), Dan Wallace's NET version 2006, Context Group Version 2007, the New European Version 2010, the Online Interlinear 2010 (Andre de Mol), the Names of God Bible 2011, The Voice of 2012 and the Hebrew Names Version 2014 - "and HE went into the city."
The NIV, which reads HE, has a footnote here that tells us: "Most Hebrew manuscripts "he"; Many Hebrew manuscripts, Vulgate and Syriac "she".
The versions that read: "And SHE went into the city" are Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1540, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the King James Bible 1611, the NKJV 1982, NASB 1995, Revised Standard Version, Douay-Rheims 1610, Douay, 1950 Bible in Basic English 1961, 1936 Jewish translation, The New Berkeley Version in Modern English 1969, the Amplified Bible of 1987, the KJV 21st Century Version 1994, the Holman Standard 2003, New English Bible 1970, New Jerusalem Bible 1985, The New Jewish Version 1985, the Revised English Bible 1989, The Word of Yah 1993, the Third Millennium Bible of 1998, The Koster Scriptures 1998, God's First Truth 1999, the 2001 English Standard Version, the Message 2002, Green's Literal 2005, Ancient Roots Translinear Bible 2008, the Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, the Common English Bible 2011, The Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, Knox English Bible 2012, the Lexham English Bible of 2012, the Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011, The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible 2011, the Orthodox Jewish Bible of 2011, the Interlinear Hebrew-Greek Scriptures 2012 (Mebust), The Hebraic Roots Bible 2012, The Katapi New Standard Bible 2012, The World English Bible 2012, the International Standard Version 2014, and the Modern English Version 2014.
And the Interlinear Hebrew Old Testament - "and SHE went into the city." You can see it here
Notice in the case of the RSV, NRSV, and ESV, each of which is a revision of the other, that the RSV went with "he", then the NRSV read "she", and the latest ESV has now gone back to "he" again.
An interesting one is called the The Translator's Bible 2014 reads: "Then he (OR, she) went back to the town."
Among foreign language Bibles many modern versions also agree with the King James Bible reading of "SHE went into the city." So read the 1995 Spanish Reina Valera - "Entonces ella se fue a la ciudad.", the French La Bible du Semeur of 1999 - puis elle rentra à la ville.", the 1991 Italian Diodati - "Ella lo sorresse, ed egli vi versò sei misure di orzo, glielo mise sulle spalle; poi essa rientrò in città." and the modern Portuguese João Ferreira de Almeida Atualizada -"Então ela foi para a cidade."
Likewise the Bible commentators give us conflicting opinions. The Coffmann Commentary on the Old and New Testaments tells us: "(Ruth 3:15). It is clear enough from the context that RUTH is the one who went into the city; and, therefore, it appears likely that Morris is correct in his opinion that, This must be an early scribal error." (Actually, there are many Hebrew manuscripts that DO have "SHE went into the city.")
So, the multitude of modern versions not only continue to disagree among themselves in their textual reading, but also in the reasons they give for their differences. Mr. Kutilek wants us to come to the same conclusion he has, that is - "There is no inerrant and inspired Bible on this earth."
#2 - Song of Solomon 2:7 "O ye daughters of Jerusalem, by the roes, and by the hinds of the field, that ye stir not up, nor awake my love, till HE please."
In the original AV 1611 a printer's error occurred and it read: "till SHE please". It was soon discovered and changed to read as it stands today in both the Oxford and Cambridge editions - "till HE please".
Here is how other Bible versions render this verse. "till IT please" - Revised Version, NIV, NKJV, ESV.
"till SHE please" - NASB 1995, Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535 - "till SHE be content herself.", Great Bible 1540, Matthew Bible 1549, Bishops' bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Douay-Rheims 1610, Longman Version 1841, Young?s 1898 NIV Spanish edition (Nueva Versión Internacional) - hasta que ella quiera despertar., Rothterham's Emphasized bible 1902, the NEB 1970 (New English Bible), the New Jerusalem bible 1985, Mebust Bible 2007, The Passion 2011 - "until SHE is ready to arise".
"till HE please" - American Standard Version 1901, King James Bible (Oxford and Cambridge editions), Webster's 1833 translation, Boothroyd Bible 1853, Julia Smith Translation 1855, The Revised English Bible 1877, the KJV 21st Century version 1994, Darby 1890, the English translation of the so called Greek Septuagint 4th Zondervan printing 1977 ?till he please?, the Third Millennium Bible 1998, Complete Apostle's Bible 2005, the Jubilee Bible 2010 and The Hebrew Transliteration Bible 2010 and The Biblos Bible 2013.
Holman Standard 2009 - until the appropriate time.
Bishops' Bible 1568 - "that ye wake not vp my loue, nor touche her, tyll SHE be content her selfe."
God's Word Translation 1995, Names of God Version 2012, ISV 2014 - "Do not arouse love before ITS PROPER TIME."
NRSV 1989 - "until THE TIME IS RIGHT."
ESV 2016, NKJV 1982, NET 2006, Green's literal 2005, Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, Lexham English Bible 2012, Modern English Version 2014 - "until IT pleases."
NIV English Version 2011, Hebrew Names Version 2014 - "until IT desires." though the NIV Spanish version reads "till SHE (Ella) wants to wake up."
The Voice 2012 - "until IT IS READY TO BE SATISFIED."
New Living Translation 2015 - "not to awaken love UNTIL THE TIME IS RIGHT."
Tree of Life Version 2015 - "until IT delights."
The Message - don't stir it up, until the time is ripe?and YOU?RE ready.
Common English Bible 2011 - "Don't arouse love, until IT DESIRES."
Complete Jewish Bible 1998 - "not to awaken or stir up love until IT wants to arise!"
Easy-to-Read Version 2006 - "
The modern Jewish translation called the Ancient Roots Translinear Bible reads like the King James Bible.
"Daughters of Jerusalem, swear by the gazelles or by the hinds of the field, ||that you will never awaken|| my love, until HE pleasures.
The Hebraic Transliteration Scripture online also translates the verse like the King James Bible.
Another Hebrew translation called the Hebrew Interlinear Bible goes with the "she" rendering.
"you are rousing up the love until SHE is desiring"
John Gill comments that the Hebrew can be read either as till HE please or as till SHE please.
The Hebrew word in question is # 2654 ghah-phehtz and is a verb which generally means "to desire, to please, to delight, to favour, or to will". Whether there is a subject pronoun or not seems to be implied by the context, and all bible translations variously translate it as "I, you, thou, he, they or she please". They ALL change the subject pronoun depending on what they think the context is.
The Hebrew phrase is found only three times in the Song of Solomon in the Hebrew Bible and in all of them the King James Bible translates it as "till HE please" - See Song 3:5 and 8:4 for the other two instances. However the other bible versions go back and forth between "till SHE please" (NASB, NEB) and "till HE please" (KJB and others) or "till IT please". (NKJV, ESV)
Jamieson, Fausset and Brown comment: "my love--in Hebrew, feminine for masculine, the abstract for concrete, Jesus Christ being the embodiment of love itself (So 3:5; 8:7), where, AS HERE, THE CONTEXT REQUIRES IT TO BE APPLIED TO HIM, NOT HER."
Matthew Henry relates: "not to stir up, or awake, her love until HE please, now that HE is asleep in her arms, as she was borne up in his, Song of Solomon 2:6."
John Wesley comments: "Nor awake - That you do not disturb nor offend HIM."
#3 - Jeremiah 34:16 "But ye turned and polluted my name, and caused every man his servant, and every man his handmaid, whom YE had set at liberty at their pleasure, to return, and brought them into subjection..."
The original 1611 said "YE" as does the Cambridge edition today, but some Oxford KJB editions says "whom HE had set at liberty". The original King James Bible read: "whome YEE had set at libertie and their pleasure, to returne". According to Scrivener's "The Authorized Edition of the English Bible 1611, its subsequent reprints and modern representatives", page 255 there was a printing variation that occurred in a 1629 printed edition that read "whom HE had set at liberty", but this was soon caught and corrected in the Cambridge printings.
Other Bible Versions in Jeremiah 34:16 - "whom YE (or YOU) had set at liberty" - Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, Bishops's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Revised Version 1881, ASV 1901, the Revised English Bible 1989, NASB 1995, NIV 1984 - 2011, RSV, NRSV, ESV 2001-2011, Rotherham's Emphasized bible 1902, the 1917 Jewish translation put out by Jewish Publication Society, Complete Jewish Bible, Lexham Bible, the Third Millennium Bible 1998 and the Jubilee Bible 2000-2010.
"whom HE had set at liberty" - NKJV 1982, Youngs, 1936 Jewish translation put out by the Hebrew Publishing Company of New York, Lamsa's 1936 translation, the Concordant Literal Version - "whom HE had sent forth free" and the Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011 - "whom HE had set at liberty". The NIV Spanish translation has made it a singular instead of the Hebrew plural as found in the NIV English translation. The Spanish Reina Valera's read as does the KJB with "que habíais liberado" (whom ye had set at liberty) but the NIV Nueva Versión Internacional has made it a singular with "que había liberado." (whom he had set at liberty).
Apparently there are some Hebrew texts that read "ye" (plural) and others that read "he" (singular). But in any case the sense or meaning of this verse is the same regardless of whether it reads "ye" or "he". "Ye" would be addressed to "you all", or the entire group collectively, whereas the "he" would be spoken about the individual within this collective group of "ye". If this is the best example the Bible agnostics have of "major revisions to the King James Bible" they are really desperate. Keep firmly in mind the FACT that not one of these Bible critics has ANY Bible in any language that they believe IS or ever WAS the complete, inspired and infallible words of God; And they want you to become a bible agnostic and an unbeliever in the inerrancy of the Bible like they are.
Mr. Kutilek is all worked up about a little printing error he thinks he has found in the KJB, and he recommends we use the modern versions, yet they all continue to disagree with each other!
That people like Mr. Kutilek have to resort to such petty arguments as this against the King James Bible, only shows how weak their case is and how desperate they are to find any error at all in God's Book.
Joshua 19:2 How many cities? Error in many bible versions.
The example here in Joshua 19:2 presents us with an interesting case of "printing errors". When the original 1611 Bible came out, it read as do the Cambridge editions today - "Beersheba, OR Sheba, and..." However some later Oxford editions changed this to: "Beersheba, AND Sheba, and...".
This printing error is easily explained. A later printer could have been proof reading the text and noticed that Joshua 19 is listing a series of cities followed time and again with the word AND. He could easily have thought that the word OR was a printing error, when in fact it was not. So he "corrected" what he thought was a printing error, and instead created one himself. Later editions merely repeated this error.
In Joshua 19:1-6 we read of the lots being cast for the inheritance of the children of Simeon. Notice the number of the cities mentioned - 13 - and then number of cities listed in such versions as the NASB 1972-1977, Geneva, Bishops' bible, Coverdale, Wycliffe, RSV, NRSV, ESV and the Catholic Douay version.
The ESV reads: "And they had for their inheritance Beersheba, SHEBA, Moladah..."
When you add up the total number of cities in these versions you come up with FOURTEEN, and yet the text says there were only THIRTEEN.
NOT EQUAL THE KJB - 14 Cities listed
Such versions as the JPS 1917, NASB 1968-1977, RSV 1952, NRSV 1989, ESV 2001, Geneva bible, Bishops', Coverdale, The New Berkeley Version in Modern English 1969, the Good News Bible 1992, The Complete Jewish Bible 1998, Contemporary English Version 1995, the Catholic Public Domain Version 2009, The Ancient Roots Bible 2010, The Common English Bible 2011, The Work of God's Children Illustrated bible 2011, The Hebraic Roots Bible 2012, the New Living Translation 2013 and the Lexham English Bible 2012, The New English Septuagint Translation 2012 and the Jehovah witness New Word Translation all read: "And they had in their inheritance Beersheba, AND Sheba, and Moladah....THIRTEEN cities." Yet a simple count from these wrong bible versions shows that they list FOURTEEN cities and not thirteen.
The New English Bible 1970 and The New English Bible 1989 simply OMIT the words "and Sheba" from the text, but they both footnote that the Hebrew reads: "and Sheba".
Good ol' Dr. Daniel Wallace, of Dallas Theological Seminary, with his ongoing scholarly disaster called the NET bible version simply OMITS THE WORD ALTOGETHER saying: "Their assigned land included Beer Sheba,(3) Moladah,..."
Then in a revealing footnote Wallace tells us that he has "emended" the text (i.e. changed it at his own will) and that: "The MT has "and Sheba" listed after "Beer Sheba" The LXX suggests "Shema" The HEBREW TEXT APPEARS TO BE CORRUPT, since the form "Sheba" duplicates the latter part of the preceding name. If Sheba (or Shema) is retained, the list numbers fourteen, one more than the number given in the concluding summary (v. 6)."
This is so typical of today's "Blinded Scholar's Syndrome". These men with all their education are judicially blinded by God in their proud unbelief. Rather than accept a simple and reasonable explanation as to why God's preserved words are true, they prefer to believe that "the Hebrew text is corrupt", when in fact it is their own minds that are corrupt and not the words of God.
The ever changing NASB has gone through 9 or 10 revisions so far, and each time they change textual readings of both the Old and New Testament, as well as their English translation. The 1972 and 1977 editions of the NASB say: "Beersheba AND Sheba, and....", but in 1995 the latest NASB has now corrected its previous blunder in this verse and now reads "Beersheba OR Sheba...".
To see more about the ever-changing 'literal' NASB, see - http://brandplucked.webs.com/everchangingnasbs.htm
In the King James Bible we read: "And they had their inheritance Beer-sheba, OR Sheba, and Moladah, and Hazarshual, and Balah, and Azem, and Eltolad, and Bethul, and Hormahn, and Ziklag, and Beth-marcaboth, and Hazarsusah, and Bethlebaoth, and Sharuhen; THIRTEEN CITIES and their villages."
If you count the number of cities mentioned in the King James Bible, and correctly take the reading of "OR Sheba" to mean that the town of Beer-sheba was also known as Sheba, then we end up with exactly 13 cities mentioned.
EQUAL THE KJB - 13 Cities listed
This is the reading found in the King James Bible and in Lesser's O.T. 1853, The Revised English Bible 1877, Young's 1898, Darby 1890, the Revised Version 1885, the ASV 1901, Rotherham's Bible 1902, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, Bible in Basic English 1961, The NKJV 1982, The New Jewish Version 1985, God's Word Translation 1995, The Koster Scriptures 1998, The World English Bible 2000, The Message 2002, the Complete Apostle's Bible 2003, the Green's Literal 2005, Holman Standard bible 2003-2009, the Concordant Literal Version 2009, New Heart English Bible 2010, The New European Version 2010, the Jubilee Bible 2010, The Hebrew Transliteration Scripture 2010, the Names of God Bible 2011, The Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, The Hebrew Names Version 2012, The Biblos Bible 2013, the ISV (International Standard Version) 2014 which reads: "Its inheritance included Beer-sheba (ALSO KNOWN AS SHEBAH), Moladah...", The Modern English Version 2014, and The Translator's Bible 2014.
The Hebrew word Beer simply means a well or a pit, and it often formed a prefix for a more complete name. We can see this in names of other cities like the one mentioned in Ezra 2:24 and comparing this with Nehemiah 7:28. In Ezra we read a list of cities and the people who came from each. "The children of Azmaveth, forty and two" but in Nehemiah the same group is called "the men of BETHazmaveth, forty and two." In both cases it is the same city, but in the one example we have the additional "Beth" but not in the other.
John Gill comments on the passage saying: "Or, Beersheba, that is, Sheba; for so the particle "vau" is sometimes used, and must be so used here; or otherwise, instead of thirteen, it will appear that there are fourteen cities, contrary to the account of them, (Joshua 19:6); so Kimchi and Ben Melech make them one city."
The King James Bible is always right.
Nahum 3:16 "FLIETH AWAY" or "FLEETH AWAY"
Cambridge KJB or Oxford KJB?
One Mr. Price's "biggies" is the printed differences in spelling found in Nahum 3:16 where we read in the Cambridge King James Bible - "...the cankerworm spoileth and FLIETH away." In the Oxford edition it reads "spoileth and FLEETH away."
The original 1611 read "flieth", but even if a later publisher mistook the word for "fleeth", any good dictionary will tell you that both words can mean the same thing.
My Webster's dictionary tells me that one of the meanings of "to fly" is "to run away from, flee from; or avoid."
But let's go even further with this "big example" Mr. Price presents us with and take a look at all the other bibles out there, shall we?
Those Bible translations that read along with the original 1611 and the Cambridge printing of the KJB "FLIETH AWAY" (or flies away) are the following: Wycliffe 1395, the Geneva Bible, Lesser O.T. 1835, R.V. 1885, the NASB 1995, NIV 1984-2011, NKJV 1982, 1917 Jewish Publication Society O.T., Darby 1890, RSV, NRSV 1989, ESV 2001-2016, Lexham English Bible 2012, Jubilee Bible 2010, Amplified bible 2015, Common English Bible 2011, Complete Jewish bible 1998, Contemporary English Version 1995, God?s Word Translation 1995, God News Translation 1992, International Standard Version 2014, Modern English Version 2014, NET bible 2006, New Century Version 2005, Names of God Bible 2011, New International Reader?s Version 2014, New Life Version 2003, Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, The Voice 2012, Hebrew Transliteration Bible 2010, Holman Standard 2017.
And this online Hebrew Interlinear Bible - "and FLIETH away"
FLEETH away -
However other versions that read "FLEE AWAY" are the ASV 1901, Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' bible 1568, Douay-Rheims 1610, Young's "literal" 1898 the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company version, the 2003 Updated Bible version, the KJV 21st Century version 1994, World English Bible 2000, Complete Apostles'Bible 2005, and the Hebrew Names Bible 2014.
A Few Other Examples
Here are a few that have sometimes come up that people ask me about.
1611 KJV "Thou art Christ."
Current KJV "Thou art the Christ."
"Thou art Christ" is also the reading of Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale and the Bishops' Bibles. Whether or not the definite article is translated or not makes no change in the meaning of the passage and most every translation done today often does not translate the definite articles and often put them in when it is not in the Greek. The Greek definite article is not used in the same way as it is in English.
1611 KJV "Andrew and Philip told Jesus."
Current KJV "Andrew and Philip tell Jesus."
"TOLD Jesus" is also the rendering of Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops' bible and the Geneva Bible. The verb is literally a present tense verb, but the majority of present day versions also often translate a present tense Greek verb as a past tense as well. Once again, the meaning of the passage is not affected in any meaningful way.
1611 KJV "the redemption that is in Jesus Christ"
Current KJV "the redemption that is in Christ Jesus"
There is no copyright law that is now binding on the publication of King James Bibles. You can print one up in your own basement if you wish. My wife has a KJV from World Press and in Deut. 33:6 it reads: "is not he thy father that hath BROUGHT thee?" instead of "thy father that hath BOUGHT thee?". Others have told me they have KJB bibles that read things like "the God of my LITE" instead of "the God of my LIFE". Are we to toss out the doctrine of an inerrant Bible solely on the basis of an occasional printing error that can easily be corrected by comparing the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts of the KJB? I think not.
One such Bible critic who continues to harp on the printing errors ploy in order to promote the idea that there does not exist now any Book that can truthfully be called the inspired and inerrant words of God is Rick Norris. Mr. Norris has written a book called 'The Unbound Scriptures'. Rick's "inspired original languages" (which he never identifies for us) is so Unbound that they can't even be found in a loose-leaf notebook. He will NEVER tell you what any of these "inspired original languages" actually SAY for any given verse, and they are not found in any book in print that he can recommend to anyone else. In his book he continues to attack the King James Bible in numerous ways as being incorrect and flawed. Every one of his points has been shot down as having no proof or validity at all. You can check out my Response to The Unbound Scriptures here -
The last shallow foxhole Rick has taken refuge in is the printing errors issue. He keeps telling us that if a book has had printing errors in it, then it cannot be the perfect words of God. Actually, what his argument goes to prove is that there never was a complete Bible and there isn't one now in any language, including the Hebrew and the Greek. All his efforts are ultimately to try to prove that there is no inerrant Bible on the earth today. Never once in his entire book about the Bible does Rick ever tell us where we can get a hold of a tangible Bible in any language that he believes are the very words of God. Rick has no answers, but lots of questions - all along the lines of the first question recorded in Holy Writ, namely Satan's first words- "Yea, hath God said...?"
Try asking people like Rick Norris if his "inspired original languages" have printing errors in them or not. He doesn't know. Why? Because they don't exist in print anywhere on this earth. Ask Rick if his "inspired original languages" read "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen" in Matthew 6:13, or if 1 John 5:7 and the witness to the Trinity is Scripture or not, or if 2 Chron. 22:2 reads 42 years or 22 years, and Rick will not tell you. Believe me, I have tried many times, and Rick never tells anyone what the Bible really says for any passage of Scripture. Yet he is absolutely sure the King James Bible is not the true and inspired words of God. How does he know this? Well, it's his OPINION, of course, and we should just believe him because he is such a renowned scholar, and he has shown us that there have been occasional printing errors in the various editions of the King James Bible.
If you want to follow the reasoning of men like Rick Norris and Doug Kutilek and many others who deny the King James Bible is the very words of God, go right ahead. God takes the wise in their own craftiness. But realize that when you follow the reasoning of these men, you end up having no Bible to believe in, and each and every one of these men will have their own individual "bible" that differs in texts and meanings in hundreds if not thousands of ways from everybody else's "bible", and not even they themselves believe theirs is the complete and inerrant words of God. "In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did that which was right in his own eyes." Judges 21:25
The examples listed above are just printing errors and they still can be found in some KJB, NKJV, NASB, and NIV editions today even with our modern high-tech presses. Don't let people like Doug Kutilek rob you of God's pure words and convince you we have no infallible Bible we can hold in our hands and believe. Bible relativists and KJB debunkers are only straining at gnats and swallowing camels.
Return to Articles - http://brandplucked.webs.com/articles.htm
What about different spellings of words like "alway/always", "throughly/thoroughly", "example/ensample" and "stablish/establish"? Is there a difference in meaning or are they just spelling variants of the same words?
See The King James Bible in America: An Orthographic, Historical, and Textual Investigation , by Bryan C. Ross.
I agree with this article that words like "alway, always, example, ensample, stablish, establish and throughly or thoroughly" are different ways to spell the same words. I checked the older bibles like Tyndale, the Great bible, Matthew's Bible, the Bishops' bible and the Geneva bible and they ALL use both word spellings and not always or even usually as does the KJB. It is pretty clear that they mean the same things.
As noted before, Tyndale had three different ways he spelled the simple word "truth". English spelling was by no means standardized in the early English bibles.
I do differ from the opinion expressed in the article about "printing errors". I think every example the article showed can easily be explained as a printing error and not a deliberate textual change.
For example, in Jude 25 "BOTH now and ever" is what is actually in the Greek text of the TR and it was in the Geneva bible 1587 and the Beza New Testament 1599. But it was not in the Great, Matthew's, or Bishops' bibles. That one simple word could have easily been overlooked in the arduous process of printing. This printing error was caught and corrected in 1638, not in 1769.
The only real spelling change I noticed was in 1 Kings 6:1 where four hundred and FOURSCORE yeres" was changed to four hundred and EIGHTY years was done in 1762 (not 1769) but keep in mind that previous English bibles like Coverdale, Matthew's, the Bishops' and the Geneva also read FOURSCORE. The Great bible actually had lxxx years.
Notes from the internet clubs -
Gary Lehman posts: " What happened to inspiration? Did it stop when it arrived at the printers?"
Gary, it is God's words that are inspired, not the printing process. There are still typos in today's modern bibles and books even with advanced technology. So, to follow your argument to its logical end, we would have to conclude that there never was and is not now such a thing as a complete and 100% true Bible. Oh, wait... That IS what you believe already. What WAS I thinking? Silly me.
The underlying Hebrew texts (which the KJB always follows and your ESV does not) and the Greek text behind the KJB has never changed in 400 years.
The KJB is based on the Traditional Greek text still used today by the Orthodox Greek churches, and your ESV Textus Corruptus is the new one the Catholic/evangelical combine has created as the new "interconfessional" N.T. text which NOBODY seriously defends as the infallible words of God.
The foretold apostasy and predicted falling away from the faith is well under way now and nobody is going to stop it.
"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Matthew 11:15
More Notes from the Internet
On Jan 4, 2012, at 11:32 AM, Dr. Ken Matto wrote:
Here is a blog which is for the sole purpose of stating the differences between the 1769 and 1611 KJV's. I don't know if you are aware of it but it was sent to me by a man who is concerned about his KJV.
(2 Th 3:13 KJV) But ye, brethren, be not weary in well doing.
Visit Scion of Zion Internet Ministry - www.scionofzion.com
Friends don't let friends read the NIV, NASV, ESV, RSV, NKJV, HCSB, etc.
Hi brother Ken. I have seen this list many times and to me it is just plain obvious that they are nothing more than printing errors that were soon caught and corrected. But the bible agnostics and Bible critics will hang on to this excuse and pretext for dear life. It is the ONLY thing they still have going for them in an effort to "prove" that no Bible in any language is or ever was the complete and infallible words of God. Not one of these people has anything in the way of a complete and 100% true Bible in any language to give us in the place of the King James Bible, and they know it. They stubbornly and pridefully refuse to submit to God's final written authority and sovereignty in history in giving us the King James Bible as His Final Authority of Written Truth. I run into these guys on the internet all the time. They have run out of arguments and examples of alleged "errors" in the Book, so this is their last ditch effort to hang on to their Biblical agnosticism. That is how I see it.
Thank you for your continued stand for God's Book - the Authorized King James Holy Bible.
A Bible critic and bible agnostic and self confessed ATHEIST named Rick Beckman, who himself does not believe that ANY Bible in ANY language IS or ever was the complete, inspired and 100% historically true words of God, has written a blog claiming that we King James Bible believers who maintain that the text of the King James Bible has not changed in 400 years except for print type from Gothic to Roman, spelling and "printing errrors" are liars.
Please note that this particular Rick Beckman is a confessed atheist. You can see his own site here where he refers to himself as "Brazenly geek. Brazenly atheist. Brazenly me." http://www.rickbeckman.org/
It is also ironic that this Bible correcting atheist is so concerned about printing errors, yet one of the first lines on his homepage is "We Are All the Reincarnation of Beethoven". As you read through some of his stuff you soon realize he is just another New Age Kook with an ax to grind against the authority of God's Book. He is hoping with all his might that it isn't going to turn out the way the Book says it will.
Rick Beckman writes:
KJV 1611 vs KJV 1769 by Rick Beckman on March 24, 2007
I have heard this enough in varying places that I wanted to post this just to help others not be duped by the statement: The only changes made since the 1611 translation of the KJV until now have been changes of spelling or printing only. That statement is a lie, and people who love Jesus & the Bible should not make such a claim even if they do have the best of intentions in doing so! So here is a list of significant changes (i.e., changes which affect meaning) made to the KJV text since 1611. The 1611 reading is first, followed by the 1769." (End of statements by this Bible agnostic with no infallible Bible himself to give to you or anyone else)
I will include the list he gives us and address each example.
1 Corinthians 12:28 helpes IN governments vs. helps, governments
According the Scrivener's book, The Authorized Edition of the English Bible 1611, It?s Subsequent Reprints and Modern Representatives, this printing error was caught and corrected in 1629.
KJB 1611 - And God hath set some in the Church, first Apostles, secondarily Prophets, thirdly Teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helpes IN gouernmets, diuersities of tongues.
KJB today - And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
Bishops' Bible 1568 - And God hath ordayned some in the Churche, first Apostles, secondarely, prophetes, thirdely teachers, then them that do miracles: after that, the giftes of healyng, helpers, gouernours, diuersitie of tongues.
Geneva Bible 1587 - And God hath ordained some in the Church: as first Apostles, secondly Prophetes, thirdly teachers, then them that doe miracles: after that, the giftes of healing, helpers, gouernours, diuersitie of tongues.
Joshua 3:11 Arke of the Covenant, EVEN the Lord vs. ark of the covenant OF the Lord
Scrivener says this was changed in the 1629 printing
KJB 1611 - Behold, the Arke of the Couenant, EVEN the Lord of all the earth, passeth ouer before you, into Iordan.
KJB today - Behold, the ark of the covenant OF the Lord of all the earth passeth over before you into Jordan.
Bishops' Bible 1568 - Beholde, the arke of the couenaunt OF the Lorde of all the world, goeth before you into Iordane.
Geneva Bible 1587 - Beholde, the Arke of the couenant OF the Lorde of all the worlde passeth before you into Iorden.
JPS 1917 - Behold, the ark of the covenant of the Lord of all the earth passeth on before you over the Jordan.
2 Kings 11:10 in the Temple vs. in the temple of the LORD
Scrivener says reading was caught and corrected in 1638.
KJB 1611 - And to the captaines ouer hundreds, did the Priest giue king Dauids speares and shields, that were in the Temple.
KJB today - And to the captains over hundreds did the priest give king David's spears and shields, that were in the temple OF THE LORD.
Coverdale 1535 - And the prest gaue the captaynes speares and shyldes which had bene kynge Dauids, and were in the house of the LORDE.
Geneva Bible 1587 - And the Priest gaue to the captaines of hundreths the speares and the shieldes that were King Dauids, & were in the house of the Lord.
JPS (Jewish Publication Society) 1917 - And the priest delivered to the captains over hundreds the spear and shields that had been king David's, which were in the house of the LORD.
Isaiah 49:13 for God vs for the LORD
Scrivener says this was caught and corrected in the 1638 edition.
KJB 1611 - Sing, O heauen, and be ioyfull, O earth, and breake forth into singing, O mountaines: for GOD hath comforted his people, and will haue mercy vpon his afflicted.
KJB today - Sing, O heavens; and be joyful, O earth; and break forth into singing, O mountains: for the LORD hath comforted his people, and will have mercy upon his afflicted.
It's hard to see how this is "a significant" difference in meaning. Even the NASB translates the word Jehovah as God 315 times and as LORD 6399 times. Of much greater significance is the fact that God Himself in numerous parallel passages interchanges the two words, using God in one and in the exact same passage in another places uses LORD.
An interesting fact about both the King James Bible and the Hebrew Scriptures themselves is that the words for Jehovah, translated in many Bibles as LORD (#3068 Jehovah) in capital letters and sometimes as GOD in capital letters are interchangeable with the word for God (#430 el-o-heem).
There are many whole sections of Scripture found in Samuel, Kings, Chronicles and Pslams that relate the same events, yet in one the Hebrew text uses the word Jehovah and in the other it uses the word eloheem. Here is just one section of Scripture out of the many that do this.
The same events are recorded in 2 Samuel 5:17 - 25 and in 1 Chronicles 14:8-17, yet we see the word Jehovah being used in 2 Samuel while Eloheem is used in 1 Chronicles, and at the same time Jehovah is used in both accounts.
2 Samuel 5:19 says: "And David inquired of the LORD" (Jehovah) but in 1 Chron. 14:10 the same verse reads: "And David enquired of God".
In 2 Samuel 5:20 "and David smote them there, and said, The LORD hath broken forth upon mine enemies" yet in 1 Chron. 14:10 "The David said, God hath broken in upon mine enemies"; in 2 Samuel 5:23 "And when David inquired of the LORD" yet in 1 Chron.14:14 "Therefore David enquired again of God"; in 2 Samuel 5:24 "for then shall the LORD go out before thee" but in 1 Chron. 14:15 "for God is gone forth before thee" and in 2 Samuel 5:25 "And David did so as the LORD had commanded him" while 1 Chron. 14:16 has: "David therefore did as God commanded him." Though the 1 Chronicles 14 passages often use "God" instead of "the LORD" yet we see "the LORD" being used in verses 14:10 and 17.
Jeremiah 31:14 - with goodness vs. with MY goodness.
Again, Scrivener says this was corrected in the 1629 edition. Not even Scrivener calls these things "revsions" but merely "editions".
KJB 1611 - And I will satiate the soule of the priests with fatnesse, and my people shall be satisfied with goodnesse, saith the Lord.
KJB today - And I will satiate the soul of the priests with fatness, and my people shall be satisfied with MY goodness, saith the LORD.
Bishops' Bible 1568 - I wyll powre plenteousnesse vpon the heartes of the priestes, and my people shalbe satisfied with MY goodnesse, saith the Lorde.
Geneva Bible 1587 - And I wil replenish the soule of the Priests with fatnesse, and my people shalbe satisfied with MY goodnesse, saith the Lord.
Jeremiah 51:30 burnt THEIR dwelling places vs. burned HER dwellingplaces
Scrivener says this was corrected in the 1629 edition. But even today the multiple bible versions continue to disagree among themselves. Those that read "HER dwelling places"are the ASV, the JPS 1917, RSV, ESV, NIV and NKJV
And those that read "THEIR dwelling places" are Coverdale, the NASB and Green's literal.
KJB 1611 - their might hath failed, they became as women: they haue burnt THEIR dwelling places: her barres are broken.
KJB today - Their might has failed, They became like women; They have burned HER dwelling places, The bars of her gate are broken.
Bishops' Bible 1568 - they shalbe lyke women, their dwellyng places shalbe burnt vp, their barres shalbe broken.
Geneva Bible 1587 - The strong men of Babel haue ceased to fight: they haue remayned in their holdes: their strength hath fayled, and they were like women: they haue burnt her dwelling places, and her barres are broken.
Ezekiel 6:8 that HE may vs. that YE may
Scrivener says that this was changed in the 1613 edition.
KJB 1611 - Yet will I leaue a remnant, that HE may haue some, that shall escape the sword among the nations, when ye shalbe scattered through the countreys.
KJB today - Yet will I leave a remnant, that YE may have some that shall escape the sword among the nations, when ye shall be scattered through the countries.
Bishops' Bible 1568 - that you may haue [some] that shall escape the sworde
Geneva Bible 1587 - that you may haue some that shall escape the sword
Ezekiel 24:5 let HIM seeth vs let THEM seethe
Scrivener says this was changed in the 1638 printing
KJB 1611 - Take the choice of the flocke, and burne also the bones vnder it, and make it boyle well, and let HIM seethe the bones of it therein.
KJB today - and make it boil well, and let THEM seethe the bones of it therein.
Most bible versions out there today simply omit both "them" and "him" altogether and say something like the NASB, ESVs with "boil it well; seethe also its bones in it."
Ezekiel 48:8 which THEY shall vs. which YE shall
1 Corinthians 15:6 AND that vs. AFTER that
Scrivener says this was changed in the 1616 edition. A very simple and easy to make minor printing error that was soon corrected.
KJB 1611 - AND that hee was seene of aboue fiue hundred brethren at once:
KJB today - AFTER that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once,
Bishops? Bible 1568 - AFTER that, he was seene of mo then fiue hundred brethren at once
Geneva Bible 1587 - AFTER that, he was seene of mo then fiue hudreth brethren at once:
2 Timothy 2:2 "heard FROM me" vs. "heard OF me"
Note: The Greek texts here are the same and can legitimately be translated both ways. They have the same meaning! These printing error fellas are really getting hard up for examples.
1611 KJB first printing - And the things that thou hast heard OF mee among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithfull men, who shall be able to teach others also.
KJB today (Cambridge, Holman, World, Zondervan, National Publishing Company, Thomas Nelson publishing companies)
"And the things that thou hast heard OF me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also."
Geneva Bible 1587 - "And what things thou hast heard OF me, by many witnesses, ye same deliuer to faithfull men, which shalbe able to teache other also."
Bishops' Bible 1568 - "And the thynges that thou haste hearde OF me by many witnesses"
2 Timothy 4:13 "The cloke that I lefe in Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, AND THE BOOKS, but especially the parchments."
In the first printing of the King James Bible the words "and the books" were accidentally omitted by printing error. The phrase was in the texts of Wycliffe, Tyndale, Bishops' Bible and the Geneva Bible. This printing error was caught and corrected in 1616 according the Scrivener's book on page 193.
Notes from the Internet -
One of the KJB believers posted this at one of the Facebook forums-
"When the translators of the King James Bible did their work beginning in 1604, they used Hebrew and Greek (and Latin) for their translating. But they were also provided with something else to assist them in their labors. Several other English translations of the Bible had been produced before the King James Bible of 1611 became the mainstay for 400 years. When the King James translators sat at their desks to do their translation work they were also provided with some of those previous translations. In fact the translators had loose-leaf copies of each of the following:
1. Tyndale's translation (1525)
2. The Coverdale Bible (1535)
3. The Matthews Bible (1537)
4. The Great Bible (1539)
5. The Geneva Bible (1560)
6. The Bishops Bible (1568)
The seventh translation would be the "preserved" words of God. It is interesting to note that in creation (Genesis 1) six times God said "it was good". But the seventh time He said "it was very good".
7. The Holy Bible (1611) (Also called the Authorized Version and later King James Version)
When the King James Bible came off the press, beginning in 1611, Gods promise of the preservation of his words was almost complete.
The King James Bible was first published in 1611, a time when there was no set way to spell English words and no guidelines for punctuation. Shortly thereafter, effort was made among the English-speaking people to set down some rules for punctuation and establish fixed spellings for words. During the next 158 years, the' English language, therefore, underwent rapid changes. Each time there was a plateau established, a new edition of the King James Bible was published to bring the spelling and punctuation in line with it. I hasten to point out that these were EDITIONS ... not REVISIONS.
Let me now give you the chronological order of the editions:
The King James Bible that we have today is the 1769 edition. Please note that it is number SEVEN! There has never been another edition since. Of course not! SEVEN is the number of PERFECTION! There will never be an eighth edition. You cannot improve on PERFECTION!
Now then, after all these purification processes, all the people who gave their lives for the word of God, protecting it, suffering for it, and translating it,... and also the Bible's themselves suffered, being burned around their owners necks, and confiscated and destroyed at all cost,... it can be said that thru the things the word of God suffered, being made perfect, they are the words written by the author of eternal salvation and they are 'Very Pure'. "
Notes from the Internet -
Pastor Evans posts: "Some folks need to learn the difference between the work of the translators and the work of the printers. KJV only opponents see the mistakes of the printers and blame them on the translators. God's promise of preservation does not mean that everyone's attempt to copy, translate or print the Bible will be inerrant."
Will Duffy's Bogus List of Changes in the King James Bible
Will Duffy, who himself does not even belief his own NKJV that he "uses" is the complete and inerrant words of God, posted this list of what he says are textual changes made in the King James Bible. I will first post the list, and then address each example.
Duffy: So Will Kinney, exactly what year did they finally get all the errors out of the King James Bible? Two of the differences that we pointed between Cambridge editions at Acts 7:28 and Rom. 10:7 are also differences between the 1769 Oxford and the 1769 Cambridge. Between those two still-popular King James texts, here are a few of the differences:
At Acts 7:28:
1769 Cambridge: as thou "killedst" the Egyptian
1769 Oxford: as thou "diddest" the Egyptian
At Romans 10:7:
1769 Cambridge: "ascend"
1769 Oxford: "descend"
And the pattern continues with:
Rom. 11:23 "not still in unbelief" vs. "not in unbelief"
1 Cor. 4:13 "the world" vs. "the earth"
2 Cor. 3:11 'is done" vs. "was done"
2 Cor. 12:2 "above" vs. "about"
Jam. 2:16 "and be ye filled" vs. "and filled"
1 Jo. 1:4: "your joy" vs. "our joy"
Rev. 18:22 "at all in thee, and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft he be, shall be found any more" is missing from the 1769 Oxford
Mt. 19:29 "eternal life" vs. "everlasting life"
Mat. 18:12 "large sums of money" vs. "large money"
John 10:29 "none' vs. "no man"
Acts 21:25 "from things" vs. "from"
Lev. 11:10 "nor scales" vs. "and scales"
Num. 9:13 "from his people" vs "from among his people"
Deut. 11:30 "champian" vs. "champaign" (vs. the 1611's "champion", so things are going downhill here)
2 Sam. 19:18 "came" vs. "was come"
So Will Kinney, again, to the rest of the Body of Christ, these changes do not hinder the effectiveness of God's robust word. But to the KJO camp, you guys claim a "100% textually pure" Bible. So my question is, exactly what year did they finally get all the errors out of the King James Bible? [end of Will Duffy's comments]
Now to address each of these examples
At Acts 7:28:
1769 Cambridge: as thou "killedst" the Egyptian
1769 Oxford: as thou "diddest" the Egyptian
Here both the original KJB 1611 and the present day Cambridge and Oxford editions all read the same - "Wilt thou kill me as thou diddest the Egyptian?" And the online KJB 1769 edition also reads "as thou diddest", just like they all do today. You can see it here -
There may have been an errant printing at one time in a Cambridge 1769 edition (or not), but it is not there today. Both the Oxford and Cambridge read the same.
At Romans 10:7:
1769 Cambridge: "ascend"
1769 Oxford: "descend"
Same thing here. The original 1611, the Oxford and the Cambridge editions all read the same - "Or, who shall DESCEND into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)" So does the online 1769 edition.
If this actually happened, then it was obviously a one time printing error that was soon caught and corrected.
And the pattern continues with:
Rom. 11:23 "not still in unbelief" vs. "not in unbelief"
Yes, the same pattern. All of them still read "if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in" - the original 1611, the 1769 and the Oxford and the Cambridge all read the exact same way. IF this other way of reading every actually happened, then it was a minor printing error in one edition that was soon caught and corrected.
1 Cor. 4:13 "the world" vs. "the earth?"
Same thing here. The original 1611 read "we are made as the filth of the world" and so do the 1769 edition, the Oxford and the Cambridge editions. You either made up this alleged printing error, or it was some weird anomaly in a printing there is no record of.
2 Cor. 3:11 "is done" vs. "was done"
Same thing. The original 1611, the 1769 edition, the Oxford and the Cambridge editions all read the same. Nothing has ever changed. "For if that which IS DONE away was glorious..."
2 Cor. 12:2 "above" vs. "about"
Same thing. The 1611, the 1769, the Oxford and the Cambridge editions all read the same - "I knew a man in Christ ABOVE fourteen years ago". This "printing error" never happened, or it was a fluke of some unknown printed version.
Jam. 2:16 "and be ye filled" vs. "and filled"
Same thing. The original 1611, the 1769 edition, the Oxford and the Cambridge all read the same - "Depart in peace, be ye warmed AND FILLED"
1 Jo. 1:4: "your joy" vs. "our joy"
Same thing. The original 1611, the 1769, the Oxford and the Cambridge editions all read the same - "And these things write we unto you, that YOUR joy may be full."
Rev. 18:22 "at all in thee, and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft he be, shall be found any more? is missing from the 1769 Oxford
Once again, this simply is not true. The original 1611, the 1769, Oxford and Cambridge all read the same and contain these words - "and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft he be, shall be found any more in thee; and the sound of a millstone shall be heard no more at all in thee"
Mt. 19:29 "eternal life" vs. "everlasting life"
Again, not true. The 1611, 1769, Oxford and Cambridge editions all read the same - "and shall inherit EVERLASTING life."
Mat. 18:12 (Matthew 28:12) "large sums of money" vs. "large money"
You made a printing error. The verse is not Matthew 18:12 but 28:12, and again it is not true. The original 1611, the 1769, Oxford and Cambridge editions are all identical - "they gave LARGE MONEY unto the soldiers."
John 10:29 "none" vs. "no man"
Again, not true. The original 1611, 1769, Oxford and Cambridge editions all read the same - "and NO MAN is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand."
Acts 21:25 "from things" vs. "from"
Again, not true at all. The original 1611, the 1769, Oxford and Cambridge editions all read the same - "save only that they keep themselves FROM THINGS offered to idols"
Lev. 11:10 "nor scales" vs. "and scales"
This is the only one so far that is different. The original 1611 read "And all that have not fins NOR scales in the seas." The 1769 as well as the Oxford and Cambridge editions all read "And all that have not fins AND scales in the sea"
Even today some modern versions say "NOR scales" while others have "AND scales" Reading "NOR scales" were the Bishops' Bible and the Geneva Bible, while Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, The Great Bible and Matthew's Bible all read "AND scales".
Num. 9:13 "from his people" vs "from among his people"
Here the original 1611 had "the same soul shall be cut off from his people", but the 1769, Oxford and Cambridge read - "the same soul shall be cut off from AMONG his people." Obviously the meaning is the same. Even today the versions differ from each other with some reading "from his people" and others "from among his people" The underlying text is the same and the meaning is the same. The ASV has "from his people" while Darby and Rotherham have "from among his people"
Deut. 11:30 "champian" vs. "champaign" (vs. the 1611's "champion", so things are going downhill here)
This is a mere example of spelling changes in the English language. The 1769, Oxford and Cambridge editions all read "which dwell in the CHAMPAIGN over against Gilgal". A champaign is 1. "a broad expanse of plain" 2. "flat, open country." It is not even an archaic word. But none of them had "champian". You either made this up, or it might have been a misprinted edition that occurred at some time in the 400 year history of the King James Bible. But once again, "champion" and "champaign" are due to the changes in spelling in English. It was not at all an attempt to change the text. Spelling had not yet become standardized.
2 Sam. 19:18 "came" vs. "was come"
And once more this simply is not true. The original 1611, the 1769, Oxford and Cambridge all read the same - "fell down before the king, as he WAS COME over Jordan."
Bible Agnostics and unbelievers in the existence of an inerrant Bible, Bob Enyart and Will Duffy smugly ask: "So Will Kinney, again, to the rest of the Body of Christ, these changes do not hinder the effectiveness of God?s robust word. But to the KJO camp, you guys claim a ?100% textually pure? Bible. So my question is, exactly what year did they finally get all the errors out of the King James Bible?"
Again, for guys like Bob Enyart and Will Duffy, even if every single printing of the King James Bible that ever came off the presses in over 400 years were all exactly the same, they would still not believe it is the complete and inerrant words of God. They are merely tossing dust into the air, hoping to cloud the issues. Most of the examples they give us here in this list are not true. The original 1611 printing as well as the 1769 and the Oxford and Cambridge bibles all read the same.
For those 2 or 3 examples where there were extremely minor differences, not one of them changed the meaning of the verse nor departs from the underlying Greek or Hebrew texts that make up the King James Bible. But because they somehow feel the need to reject the idea of an inerrant Bible in ANY language, they will stumble over these pebbles in the road and remain bible agnostics. For those who have ears to hear, you can get yourself a copy of the complete, inerrant, inspired and 100% true words of God by purchasing a Cambridge edition of the King James Bible in any bookstore. Or you can order them from either of these two Bible publishers, and you can see it online here.
Online site where you can see the inerrant words of God
No Perfect KJV? 1611, 1769, Cambridge or Oxford? by Dr. Gene Kim
THE VARIOUS EDITIONS OF THE 1611 A.V. by James Melton.
If someone decides to produce a "new Bible version", then they must also convince Christians that there is a NEED and a justifiable CAUSE for the new version. One of the deceitful excuses being used today for producing new versions is that the King James Bible has been revised several times since 1611, and that a new revision is needed once again. While spreading this piece of deceitful misinformation, the KJV critics hold their breath, hoping that no one will be intelligent enough to ask for specific details about these "revisions". The many revisions that have occurred since 1881 bear NO RESEMBLANCE to the various EDITIONS of the KJV prior to 1881. The modern revisers are just trying to justify their sins.
There were only four actual EDITIONS (not "revisions") of the King James Bible produced after 1611: 1629, 1638, 1762, and 1769. These were not translations (like the new versions SINCE 1881), and they really weren't even "revisions".
The 1629 edition was simply an effort to correct printing errors, and two of the original King James translators assisted in the work.
The 1638 edition of the KJV also dealt with printing errors, especially words and clauses overlooked by the printers. About 72% of the textual corrections in the KJV were done by 1638, only 27 years after the first printing.
Please bear in mind the fact that printing was a very laborious task prior to 1800. Publishing a flawless work was almost impossible. Even today, with computers and advanced word processors, printing errors are still frequently made. Imagine what it was like in the 1600's!
Then, in 1762 and 1769, two final editions of the KJV were published. Both of these involved spelling changes, which became necessary as the English language became more stabilized and spelling rules were established.
There were no new translations, and there were really no new revisions published in 1629, 1638, 1762, or 1769. These were simply EDITIONS of the 1611 KJV, which corrected printing errors and spelling.
Those who try to equate these editions with the modern translations are just being deceitful or ignorant--or both. The many other so-called "revisions" of the KJV that occurred in 1613, 1616, 1617, and 1743 are nothing more than running changes and touch-up work at the printers. The REAL revisions and translations did not start appearing until 1881 (RV) and 1901 (ASV).
So if some wise guy asks you, "So which King James Bible do you have, the 1611, the 1629, the 1638, the 1762, or the 1769?", you can simply state that you have a 1769 EDITION of the King James 1611 Authorized Version.
A great place to buy quality made King James Holy Bibles
Bearing Precious Seed
And here is another one
Those who chose to remain Bible agnostics and unbelievers in the inerrancy of The Bible (ANY Bible) will continue to mock and ridicule the idea that God has actually worked in history to give us an inerrant Bible in any language.
"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Luke 8:8
"But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant." 1 Corinthians 14:38